ACE

Category: Human Rights and Equality

  • Puberty Blockers and Transgender Youth

    Puberty Blockers and Transgender Youth

    Transgender youth in America

    Transgender is an umbrella term used to refer to individuals whose gender identity does not align with the sex they were assigned at birth. Over 1.6 million people identify as transgender in the United States, with nearly 1 in 5 falling between the ages of 13 and 17. About 300,000 youth identify as transgender, making up about 1.4% of Americans within that age range. The age of coming out varies greatly; sometimes young children identify as transgender; other times people do not come forward or even understand themselves to be transgender until later adolescance or adulthood. 

    What are puberty blockers?

    Many transgender youth experience discomfort in their body at the onset of puberty because the development of secondary sex features such as breasts, facial hair, penis growth, etc, is at odds with their gender identity. This can lead to a form of psychological distress called gender dysphoria. 

    Puberty blockers are medications that young gender divergent individuals can take to temporarily suppress the release of sex hormones and therefore the effects of puberty. They are used to give young people more time to make a decision about transitioning and to prevent the irreversible effects of puberty that are causing the patient distress. If someone stops taking the medication, the release of hormones and normal development of secondary sex characteristics will resume. Taking them early is seen as important because, unlike puberty blockers, the effects of puberty itself are permanent.

    There are two main categories of puberty blockers:

    • Lueprolide acetate: an injectable shot taken every 1-6 months. 
    • Histreline acetate: a flexible rod inserted under the skin of the arm and lasting for 1 year. 

    Timeline of Youth Transition

    Puberty blockers are not taken in isolation; they are prescribed at a certain period of development and in the context of other types of transition.

    • Pre-puberty: Social Transition
      • Using the child’s preferred pronouns as well as outside signifiers such as dress and hairstyle to affirm the gender with which they identify. Does not involve any medical intervention.
    • Puberty: Puberty blockers
      • Best taken at the onset of puberty, but can still be effective if taken at later stages.
    • Late adolescence: Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy
      • Traditionally, the minimum age for GAHT is 16 but recent guidelines are more flexible. Once necessary criteria are met, doctors and patients can decide whether the treatment is appropriate.
    • Adulthood: Gender Affirming Surgery
      • Surgery can only be performed on adults (with the exception of breast reduction surgery, which is also sanctioned for cisgender minors who have parental permission).
        • Note: A significant number of transgender individuals never get any surgery. For some, puberty suppression may reduce that need.

    Political context

    As of July 2022, at least 22 state bills have been introduced that would ban the use of puberty blockers as well as other forms of medical treatment for minors with gender dysphoria. Bypassing the legislature, the Texas Attorney General also declared medical treatments for gender dysphoria, including puberty blockers, to be child abuse and grounds for children to be taken from their parents. The order is currently being challenged in court. 

    As a result of state actions, over 45,000 youth 13 years and older may lose access to gender-affirming health care options. Major medical organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, oppose these restrictions. 

    The Intersex Exception

    It is noteworthy that the Texas order as well as all 22 bills specifically carve out exceptions for performing such treatments on intersex children. While transgender youth are individuals who identify with a gender that differs from the sex they were assigned at birth, intersex children are born with a combination of chromosomes, genitalia, and hormone levels that mean they do not fit neatly into our understanding of either male or female. The choice to allow actual surgical procedures to be performed on intersex children with no age limit belies the expressed concern about the safety and appropriateness of such procedures being performed on minors. 

    Many intersex advocates have decried the common practice of performing irreversible procedures on intersex infants and young children. Yet these bills explicitly deny any such protection. As a result, they do not protect children from irreversible medical interventions being done before they are able to consent, but rather limits their use to instances in which they reinforce a binary biological sex- even if that changes a child’s natural biology without their consent.

    The politicians and advocates working on these initiatives allege that puberty blockers are:

    • Not FDA approved
    • Irreversible
    • Impact large numbers of children who change their mind later
    • Have adverse impacts on mental health, bone health, and brain development. 

    The allegations and science will be discussed in detail below. 

    The Science

    Are puberty blockers FDA approved?

    In 1993, puberty blockers were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of  precocious puberty, a condition in which young children begin to develop sexually mature features before the age of 9. They are also approved to treat endometriosis and prostate cancer in adults. The FDA has not officially expanded this to include treatment for gender-affirming care, as research of this population is ongoing. That is in great part because drug companies have not performed the necessary studies to receive FDA approval. Combined with how small a population it is, this is not surprising because drug companies are reluctant to perform trials on children. For this reason, pediatricians frequently prescribe medications that have not been officially approved for minors. Despite the FDA not having officially approved puberty blockers for the treatment of gender dysphoria, they are commonly used for this purpose and seen as safe by the medical professionals who prescribe them.

    Are puberty blockers really reversible?

    All available evidence indicates that puberty blockers are fully reversible. For example, girls treated for precocious puberty are, once they stop taking the medication, able to resume normal puberty within 6 months and give birth in adulthood. Expert consensus from the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health is that this is also true for transgender youth. 

    The idea that puberty blockers are irreversible is due in part to the conflation of puberty blockers with Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy (GAHT), which are medications that older adolescents and adults take. Puberty blockers hit ‘pause’ on both testosterone and estrogen production, thereby delaying the development of secondary sex characteristics. In contrast, GAHT actually introduces hormones into the system in order to induce feminine or masculine development. Because of this, GAHT is not entirely reversible and comes with different side-effects, including possible sterilization. Traditionally, the minimum age for GAHT is 16. However, recent guidelines focus more on whether the patient meets the necessary criteria, even if they are a year or two younger. 

    If there are legitimate concerns that the patient is not ready to add GAHT or that they do not yet have sufficient capacity to give informed consent, puberty blockers are an effective way to give the young person more time to decide. This is helpful if someone changes their mind and decides to ‘detransition’ to the gender that aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth. However, this is a small number, as research shows that few transgender youth change their mind. 

    Rate of ‘Detransition’

    Earlier studies that bills cite as evidence of high detransition rates have been criticized by experts for two key weaknesses: 1) they include significant numbers of children who never identified as transgender but were brought to doctors by concerned parents because they were gender-nonconforming (e.g. “effeminate” boys); and 2) the children that did want to transition were discouraged from doing so by parents and doctors 

    More recent studies select only children who self-identify as transgender and try to control for the level of parental support in transitioning. A 2022 study followed 317 initially transgender youth who socially transitioned to find whether they had changed their mind 5 years later. It found that 97.5% of youth still identified as transgender, with only 2.5% ultimately changing their minds. The latter group frequently began to socially transition before the age of 6 and often detransitioned before the age of 10. By the end of the study, 60% of participants had begun puberty blockers or hormones; of that group only one detransitioned. 

    Impact on mental health

    The study frequently cited as showing increased risk of suicide due to puberty blockers did not examine transgender youth who took puberty blockers. Instead, it looked at overall youth suicide rates in states with easier access to such treatment and compared them to suicide rates in states with more restricted access.

    Studies that focus on the relevant population find different results. Results show that access to puberty blockers and hormone treatments are associated with a 40% – 73% decrease in depression and suicide for gender nonconforming youth when compared to control groups of young people who wanted those treatments but could not get them. A 2022 study found that the control group’s risk of suicidal thoughts and depression doubled or tripled at three and six months into the study. The onset of puberty has been identified as an especially vulnerable time for transgender youth as they are at an elevated risk of self-harm because their bodies’ development exacerbates gender dysphoria.

    It is also noteworthy that the use of puberty blockers in combination with hormone treatments can result in a more masculine or feminine appearance for binary transgender individuals that not only affirms their internal identity, but also reduces the likelihood of transgender discrimination, which has been associated with harm to mental health.

    On the opposite end of the spectrum, gender identity conversion efforts (actions by a professional taken to force a self-identified transgender person to be cisgender) are linked to significant increases in lifelong suicide attempts in adulthood. 

    Side Effects and Risks

    No medication is entirely without risk. So, what do we know about the potential side effects of puberty blockers?

    Standard:

    Known side effects may include hot flashes, fatigue, and mood swings, comparable to other commonly prescribed medications.

    May reduce options for future surgery

    Puberty blockers may impact those who end up pursuing feminizing gender-confirmation surgery (GCS) in adulthood. Surgery and desirability rates show that this is relevant for approximately half of transgender women and about 10% of nonbinary people assigned male at birth.  

    • The most common type of feminizing “bottom surgery” used is penile inversion vaginoplasty. This uses tissue from the penis and testes to construct a vagina. Because puberty blockers halt development of male sexual organs, patients are likely to need the alternative option.
    • Intestinal or sigmoid vaginoplasty requires abdominal surgery in order to take tissue from the colon or omentum instead. This is the same type of surgery also used for cisgender women who have had a vaginectomy as a result of vaginal cancer, as well as those born without a vagina due to vaginal agenesis. While the surgery is more invasive, current research suggests that it is a reliable alternative and does not have increased complications at follow-up. 

    Bone Density

    Several studies indicate that transgender children who take puberty blockers tend to have below-average bone mineral density. For this reason, the Endocrine Society recommends that once puberty blockers are prescribed bone density should be regularly monitored by doctors. In addition, if a patient has been taking puberty blockers for years by the time they turn 16, then it may be time to either stop taking puberty blockers or to begin hormone therapy, either of which may then mineralize the bone. In light of this recommendation, the Arizona bill passed in February is noteworthy as it did not outlaw puberty blockers but does ban treatments that are “irreversible” – including Gender-Affirmation Hormone Treatments.

    Brain Development

    There appears to be no evidence for the claim that puberty blockers adversely impact brain development in humans. A study cited as showing a decrease in spatial reasoning was done on sheep; a 2015 study found that puberty blockers did not appear to impact executive functioning in humans. 

    Expert Guidelines

    It is important to note that not all transgender youth are diagnosed with gender dysphoria—and not all people who are diagnosed with dysphoria choose to get medical treatment. However, many young people in the US do experience distress and need medical intervention. 

    There is a hunger for more data, but based on the current science experts consider puberty blockers to be safe for short-term use in adolescents, including for the treatment of gender dysphoria. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatric providers use a gender-affirmative care model that is centered on understanding and appreciating a patient’s gender experience in a developmentally appropriate way. The Endocrine Society has published accessible patient resources as well as the clinical guidelines that set the standard of care for the safe and responsible use of puberty blockers in gender divergent youth. This may involve an evaluation with a mental health provider with experience in gender identity, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and assistance with social transitioning. Fact-based discussions between doctors and patients about risks, side-effects, and the potential benefits are key. Because many (although not all) youth who take puberty suppressors go on to receive gender-affirming hormone treatments, which may impact the ability to have children, doctors should go over options for fertility preservation with patients prior to starting suppressors.

    The Endocrine Society and WPATH SOC recommend that puberty blockers not be used until the onset of puberty. Until that point, transition should be social but not medical. Patients should meet certain qualifications before suppressors are prescribed. Namely: 

    • Diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a qualified mental health provider;
    • Gender dysphoria worsens with the onset of puberty. 

    Experts also recommend that once someone begins taking puberty suppressors they get lab work done regularly to monitor:

    • Height and weight
    • Bone health
    • Hormone and vitamin levels

    There is a consensus that when done responsibly, puberty blockers and subsequent gender-affirming treatments can be greatly beneficial for transgender and nonbinary youth. A groundbreaking long-term retrospective case-study of a patient who received puberty suppressors in childhood was published in 2011. 22 years after initial assessment, the patient still identified as transgender and had undergone surgery. Their anthropomorphic, endocrine, and bone density tests were normal and they were functioning well psychologically, socially, and intellectually.

  • Transgender Healthcare in the US

    Transgender Healthcare in the US

    General Health Care

    Transgender healthcare in the U.S. falls into two categories: general healthcare services for transgender individuals and transgender-related services. 

    Prior to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), many transgender individuals had limited access to both general healthcare services and transgender-related services. Being transgender was considered a pre-existing condition, which meant that health insurance companies could legally charge a transgender patient higher premiums or deny them coverage. The ACA made that practice illegal in 2014. Two years later, the federal government provided another layer of legal protection by adding gender identity to Section 1557 of the law, which already prohibited discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. 

    As a result, transgender individuals in the US now have the right to purchase insurance and receive general health servces equal to cisgender people. However, that does not necessarily mean that gender affirmation services are guaranteed to be covered.

    What are Gender Affirmation Services?

    Transgender is an umbrella term used to refer to individuals whose gender identity does not align with the sex they were assigned at birth. Many members of this population experience discomfort in their body as a result, potentially leading to psychological distress. The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) calls this gender dysphoria. 

    While previous versions of the DSM instead listed “Gender Identity Disorder”, the authors of the DSM-5 concluded that there is nothing inherently wrong with varied gender identities and classifying them as a disorder was, like the inclusion of “homosexuality” in the DSM until 1973, unneccessarily stigmatizing. The DSM-5 clarifies that having a non-traditional gender identity is not an issue. However, if a person experiences persistent distress as a result of the conflict between their body and their identity, that “gender dysphoria” is a disorder in need of treatment. Effective treatment involves altering the person’s gender expression and body to better align with their identity. Gender affirmation services are medical services that achieve this purpose. Types of gender affirmation services include:

    • Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy
      • Feminizing hormone therapy: Medications will a) block the production of testosterone, and b) introduce more estrogen into the system in order to induce feminine secondary sex characteristics such as breast development and facial/body hair reduction. 
      • Masculinizing hormone therapy: Medications will a) block the production of estrogen, and b) introduce more testosterone into the system in order to induce masculine characteristics such as a change in muscle mass as well as the production of facial/body hair. 
    • Pubertal blockers: Medications that young gender divergent individuals can take to temporarily suppress the release of sex hormones and therefore the effects of puberty. If someone stops taking the medication, the release of hormones and normal development of secondary sex characteristics will resume.
    • Surgery
      • Removal of breasts, ovaries, uterus, penis, testicals, and prostate gland; and genital reconstruction.
      • Facial contouring or hair transplants (often considered cosmetic and therefore commonly excluded even in plans that have broader coverage).

    Types of Insurance

    Whether a person experiencing gender dysphoria is able to access treatment depends largely on what type of insurance they have. 

    • Uninsured: If someone is uninsured, they pay for the entirety of the service out of pocket. Transgender adults are more likely to be uninsured than cisgender adults as well as to report barriers due to cost. Hormone therapy typically costs $100/month and gender affirmation surgery usually ranges from $7,000 to $50,000.
    • Employer Insurance: Nearly half of Americans receive health insurance through their employer. Employers (including 67% of Fortune 500 companies), increasingly offer health plans that include coverage for gender affirmation services, yet there is still variation in coverage. Employers can be as generous as they wish. When it comes to determining whether an employer is meeting minimum coverage requirements, however, it is far more complex. Self-insured and level-funded group health plans are only subject to federal nondiscrimination laws. Fully insured group health plans must also comply with non-discrimination laws of the state they are written out of. 
    • Medicaid: Medicaid is a government-provided health insurance option for low-income Americans. While the program receives federal funding, it is run and administered by the state. As a result, the 152,000 transgender adults on Medicaid experience different coverage depending on their location. However, evaluating coverage is not easy, as most states do not include information about gender affirmation services in their Medicaid handbooks/webpages. An analysis published in 2021 found that 67% of states cover hormone therapy and 49% cover surgery.
      • Hormone Therapy:
        • Covered: 34 of 51 states 
        • Not covered: 9 of 51 states and 2 of 5 territories 
        • Could not confirm: 8 of 51 states and 3 of 5 territories
      • Surgery
        • Covered: 25 of 51 states 
        • Not covered: 22 of 51 states and 3 of 5 territories 
        • Could not confirm: 4 of 51 states and 2 of 5 territories
    • Medicare: Medicare is a federal government health insurance program available to persons over the age of 65 and persons with disabilities. For decades, Medicare excluded transgender surgery and related procedures because procedures were deemed experimental. In 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a new determination. Now Medicare determines coverage of transgender-related procedures on a case-by-case basis. As with other health services, it outlines requirements for diagnosis and proof of need. So long as that burden is met, Medicare now covers hormone therapy as well as most surgical procedures (with the exception of those deemed cosmetic, such as facial contouring and hair transplants). As of 2018, 10,200 individuals were accessing transgender services through Medicare. An analysis showed that 77% of transgender individuals on Medicare were under the age of 65, meaning they had access to this insurance option because of a disability. 
    • Non-Group Insurance: Individuals who do not qualify for Medicare or Medicaid and who do not receive insurance through their employer can purchase health insurance on the government-run Marketplace. Like with employer-sponsored insurance, there is extensive variation in clarity, coverage specification, and types of exclusions.
      • 9% of contracts excluded all trans-related services.
      • 25% of companies offered an exclusionary contract.

    According to Healthcare.gov, transgender individuals should look in contracts for:

    • “All procedures related to being transgender are not covered.”
    • Other sections using language: “gender change,” “transsexualism,”  “gender identity disorder,” and “gender identity dysphoria.”
  • What is the United States Doing in Guantanamo Bay—20 Years Later?

    What is the United States Doing in Guantanamo Bay—20 Years Later?

    Guantanamo Bay Over 4 Presidencies

    Following the September 11th terrorist attacks, then-President George Bush launched the Global War on Terrorism, which sought to protect US citizens from potential terrorist attacks by funding global security and military efforts. The US federal pricetag for the global War on Terror is estimated to be over $8 trillion. This estimated cost includes the funds to build and operate Guantanamo Bay, a detention facility located in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which is used to detain of suspected members and affiliates of terrorist groups. 

    Since the establishment of Guantanamo Bay, debates have arisen over human rights, safety, and lawfulness. President Obama spent the beginning of his presidency working to shut down Guantanamo, however pushback from members of the Senate prolonged the closure of the center. Arguments against the closing of Guantanamo range from concerns about releasing terrorists or potential terrorists into the U.S. and into other countries, to the high cost of closing Guantanamo Bay. The Obama Administration, however, was successful in enforcing new procedures for handling the detainees. Obama managed to transfer, repatriate, or resettle 197 detainees. Ultimately, his efforts did not see the closure of Guantanamo.

    When President Trump took office in 2017, advocates for the closing of Guantanamo Bay had little hope that this would come to fruition. During his campaign, Trump advocated for the continued transfer of people into Guantanamo. As promised, Trump signed an Executive Act to reverse Obama-era policies aimed to shut down Guantanamo and ultimately halted the closure of Guantanamo. Trump’s Executive Order commands the Secretary of Defense and other officials to offer the President new policies “regarding the disposition of individuals captured in connection with an armed conflict, including policies governing transfer of individuals to the U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay” within 90 days. Secretary of Defense Mattis suggested keeping the current U.S. policies on Guantanamo. 

    Now, the question of Guantanamo’s fate under President Joe Biden has taken the foreground. 

    Biden’s Promises of Closing Down Guantanamo

    Before taking office, Biden advocated for the closing of Guantanamo. During a 2016 press conference, Biden was asked about his prospects for successfully closing Guantanamo before the end of his Vice-Presidency. He replied, “that is my hope and expectation”. During his campaign for presidency, Biden promised to close down Guantanamo, though failed to mention in detail his plans for doing so. While Biden’s move into office had given advocates hope for its future shut-down, little tangible change has been seen since the start of his term.

    Biden and Guantanamo in 2022

    Since 2002, roughly 800 detainees have been held at Guantanamo. As of April 22nd, 2022 37 remained, most of whom will be held indefinitely. Of the remaining detainees, the Department of Defense recorded:

    On June 24, 2022 the Defense Department transferred a detainee to his home country, Afghanistan, which reduced the number of detainees to 36. While the steady reduction in detainees is seen as a concrete step towards closing Guantanamo as compared to the last administration’s efforts, progress is slow and it will be a long time before the process is complete. 

    Biden’s Low Profile Approach towards Guantanamo—Matter Avoidance or a Matter of Tactic?

    The Biden Administration has taken a low profile approach to handling Guantanamo—a notably quieter approach than that of Obama. 

    So far into Biden’s presidency, little has been said about his plans for Guantanamo. Some speculate that Biden’s quiet approach is a tactic to minimize political backlash. “President Biden appears to have learned from Obama’s missteps, transferring one prisoner and clearing many without being too loud about it and painting a target on his own back,” Ramzi Kassem, a law professor at the City University of New York, stated. In February, a review board approved the safe release of more than half of the men held indefinitely at the detention facility. Biden has not yet made public the process used in releasing detainees, however it seems the Administration is taking measures to ensure the release of these detainees following Obama-era policies. 

    Pushback on Biden’s attempts to close Guantanamo is anticipated in the current political climate. Some believe the United States has the right to keep Guantanamo Bay open since the US is still in armed conflict and Guantanamo might serve a function in helping obtain vital information that will ensure the safety of American citizens. In his testimony to the senate, Cully Stimson, defended the need for Guantanamo, saying “[U.S.] is entitled, under domestic and international law, to detain opposing enemy forces for the duration of hostilities, including the terrorists at Guantanamo”. Others have criticized Biden for his silence on the topic as they “fear a repeat of what happened under President Obama”. 

    Is Biden implementing Obama’s Policies on Guantanamo Bay? 

    At the start of his presidency, Obama signed executive orders which proposed a timeline for the trial or release of detainees. The timeline was faster than the Bush Administration’s process which proposed trying prisoners through military commissions on a case-by-case basis. Obama’s plan involved securely transferring detainees to home countries or to countries which would accept them, accelerating periodic reviews, prosecuting detainees under federal government jurisdiction, and finding secure locations for some detainees in the United States. Some criticized Obama’s plan to bring detainees into the United States, arguing that it would compromise citizen safety. A second courtroom is under construction, which would allow military commissions to undertake multiple cases at once, accelerating detainee processing.

    What does the Future of Guantanamo Look Like? 

    It is yet unclear the fate of Guantanamo under the presidency of George Biden. As for future plans: “[Biden’s] Administration is dedicated to following a deliberate and thorough process focused on responsibly reducing the detainee population of the Guantánamo facility while also safeguarding the security of the United States and its allies” says Ned Price, the State Department spokesperson.

  • Crisis at the US-Mexico Border

    Crisis at the US-Mexico Border

    This brief was originally published on October 6, 2021 by Jocelyn Boudreau. It was updated and republished by Olivia Schroeder on July 28, 2022.

    Migrants, Refugees, and Asylum Seekers

    In the United States, a refugee is defined as a person “who has fled their country because they are at risk of serious human rights violations and persecution” without their home government being able, or willing, to protect them. Refugees are registered with international agencies and undergo a background check to ensure they meet specified requirements. Asylum seekers apply for asylum at a U.S. port of entry, and are not guaranteed protections or aid until their background is verified and it is confirmed that they fled persecution in their home counties. “Migrant” is an umbrella term used to describe any person who has left their home country. This includes asylum seekers, economic migrants, or those fleeing natural disasters.

    Crisis at the Southern Border

    Statistics on encounters, expulsions, and apprehensions at the border form a holistic impression of the events at the southern border. 

    • Encounters are measured by the number of migrants coming in contact with Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at the border. Encounters gauge how many people attempt to cross, but do not reflect successful crossings. According to the Associated Press, border encounters reached about 75,000 in December 2020, the final month of President Trump’s term, and surpassed 172,000 in March 2020 under President Biden. 71 percent of encounters recorded in February 2021 were single-adult encounters, but family encounters are rising: families and minors comprised more than 40 percent of encounters in March. To officially seek asylum, migrants make their claim to the first CBP or ICE official they encounter. Alternatively, they may submit an application for an asylum grant, followed by an employment authorization while they await their hearing. 
    • Apprehensions and expulsions both follow from encounters, but result in different outcomes that project a more complete picture of the border situation. When a migrant(s) is apprehended, they are admitted to the United States to be placed in custody to await their hearing. If a migrant is not apprehended, they are not granted entry into the US and face expulsion. Expulsion involves being sent back to either their home country or the last country of transit by CBP and ICE agents. The percentage of expulsions dropped from 92% in July 2020 to 47% in July 2021. An influx of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers arriving at the Southern border led President Trump to issue a national emergency declaration in 2019. Trump’s executive action allowed about $8 billion in funds from several sources to be allocated towards border security measures. The funding was intended to act as a budget for constructing a border wall between Mexico and the United States. Combining Treasury Department and Department of Defense drug forfeiture funds with military construction and Congressionally-delegated budgets, the Trump administration gathered enough money for 234 miles of border wall. 

    Before the barrier was finished, the emergency declaration was reversed by the Biden administration in January 2021. President Biden halted the construction of the wall and terminated contracts made with private construction agencies. However, there is a question as to whether Biden has the right to redirect the funds for the construction of the border wall as military funds were involved in Trump’s budget. As thousands of migrants attempt to enter the United States from its Southern border, the issue has developed into an argument of whether the crisis lies in the overwhelming amount of immigrant arrivals, or the conditions from which they seek refuge.

    The Biden Administration

    Immigration reform was a major priority for the new Biden administration. So far, Biden has focused on rebuilding the current immigration system. The administration implemented a policy that does not deny any unaccompanied minor when seeking asylum. President Biden blocked the expulsion of unaccompanied minors at the southern border, which was previously in practice under the Trump Administration when Title 42 was put into place. The CDC stated that they recognized the “unique vulnerabilities” of unaccompanied minors and that the expulsion of these migrants isn’t warranted to protect public health standards. Title 42 allowed for the expulsion of migrants when the pandemic began in 2020. However, the policy can still be used to expel single migrants and families of migrants. The Build Back Better Act passed the House in November of 2021 which allows seven million immigrants to apply for protection from deportation, work permits, and drivers licenses. This is a step away from Trump-era policies which focused on securing the border and stricter immigration policies. President Biden has proposed an eight year path to citizenship for immigrants. The policy will allow for the estimated 10.5 million undocumented immigrants who already reside in the US a pathway to legal status. Undocumented migrants would be able to apply for temporary legal status and green cards if/when they pass a criminal background check. According to the White House, the benefits to Biden’s plan are “ [the modernization] of the immigration system, [prioritizing] keeping families together, growing our economy, responsibly managing the border with smart investments, addressing the root causes of migration from Central America, and ensuring that the United States remains a refuge for those fleeing persecution.” However, a benefit of Trump’s plans for immigration is that the US would not need to take all of these steps and documentation wouldn’t be necessary if the border was more secure, unauthorized immigrants were deported, and not given asylum-seeking status.

    Public Health Concerns

    In the months leading up to the coronavirus outbreak, CBP and ICE practices sparked outrage amongst human rights activists. Border police detained migrants outdoors, in a fenced-off area under an El Paso bridge, when facilities became overcrowded. Although CBP officials ended this practice in April 2019, lack of space and supplies continued to be an issue at border facilities. An exposé detailing inadequate conditions in a Clint, Texas CBP facility revealed a trend apparent in many detention centers. Migrants were held in small spaces without proper nutrition or sanitation; lights left on 24 hours a day or no electricity at all; cold temperatures with no blankets, pillows, or beds; no running water and no private restrooms.

    Under these conditions, even mild contagions spread with ease. Following the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, CBP facilities gained attention as catalysts for spreading the virus. Of the nearly 40,000 migrants detained since the beginning of the pandemic, 78 tests were administered, and many were positive for COVID-19. It was also revealed that positive and symptomatic detainees were not isolated from other migrants, exposing thousands to the risk of contracting the virus. Title 42, a Trump-era policy which is still in use, was put into place in an attempt to stop the spread of the virus in holding facilities. The policy will be reviewed every sixty days in regards to the spread of the coronavirus. Under the legislation, anyone suspected of bringing a communicable disease into the US to all land and coastal entry points is prohibited from entering the country.

    The effects of the pandemic have impacted the rates of migration across the US-Mexico border. As the Biden Administration has not taken the same hardline approach to border security, some have raised concerns that migrants are “encouraged” to migrate into the United States.

    Expelled to Danger

    In addition to health concerns, migrants face dangers in the territory surrounding the border. A Trump-era policy, known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, mandated that migrants seeking to enter the United States were to await their court hearings within Mexico, or be sent back to their home country to wait. Previously, the asylum process once took a few months, but now it can take two to five years to complete. The Biden Administration briefly stopped the“Remain in Mexico” policy, but it was reinstated in December of 2021 after a Supreme Court ruling in its favor. 

    Endangerment Under Government Watch

    A 2014 complaint filed on behalf of 116 children detailed accounts of sexual, physical, and verbal abuse in addition to denial of adequate food, water, and sanitation in holding facilities at the border. According to the document, 80 percent of children reported these consistent offenses. The Biden Administration, as mandated by US anti-trafficking laws, has been transferring non-Mexican minors to shelters overseen by the government. This policy has also resulted in minors spending less time in holding facilities than they did during the Trump Administration. 

    These human rights violations have spanned multiple years, and multiple presidential administrations. Today, the Biden administration still manages overcrowded migrant facilities, especially in trying to maintain social distancing measures to minimize spreading COVID-19. 

    The Biden Administration is seeking to send unaccompanied migrant children to live with relatives or sponsor families, and plans to use convention centers near the border for CBP operations in order to decongest the current facilities. This new policy differed from the “Zero Tolerance Policy” of the Trump Administration which did not allow families to reconnect. As of 2021, Biden has reversed this specific process and many, but not all, families have been reunited.

    Politicization of the Crisis

    Among US politicians, there are two lines of thought when assessing the crisis at the Southern border. On one hand, some progressives believe giving any funds to CBP and ICE operations condones the inhumane treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers. Designating money to these agencies permits the continuation of unsafe, unsanitary detention centers. However, removing all, or most, funding does not ensure that conditions will improve. On the other hand, there is the “smart money” group that advocates for strategic designation of funds. This sect sees the issue as an inefficient use of resources that cannot be solved by rescinding the entire budget. In a system that has been suffering from a severe lack of resources, removing any chance of providing necessities to migrants will not solve the problems these agencies face.

    There is also debate surrounding the origins of the crisis at the border. Some believe the issue is the volume of asylum seekers, and seek to increase funding for CBP and ICE operations to address the influxes. Others believe the core of the problem is the environment which produces asylum seekers. They want to designate more funds to aiding Central and South American countries experiencing regime changes and political violence.

  • The Pell Federal Grant Program Expansion

    The Pell Federal Grant Program Expansion

    The Rising Cost of College

    In the 21st century, the cost of higher education has more than doubled and is growing annually at a rate of 6.8% a year. With inflation and the economic effects of Covid-19, a survey of over 10,000 college students found that 56% of students can no longer afford tuition. With college affordability being a highly contested topic at all levels of government, there are many arguments surrounding federal aid amounts and eligibility. Currently, Americans cumulatively owe approximately $1.75 trillion in student loans, with federal loans accounting for nearly 93% of that total. 

    The Pell Federal Grant Program

    The Pell Federal Grant Program is the largest federal grant program for undergraduate students. These grants do not need to be repaid, and students must fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Financial Aid (FAFSA®) form in order to assess need. The amount awarded depends on family contribution, cost of attendance, status as part-time or full-time student, and plans of attending for a full year or less. 

    In March 2022, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that increased the maximum and minimum Pell Grant award amount. The bill expanded a maximum award from $6,495 to $6,895, and a minimum award of $650 to $690 for the 2022-2023 school year. This increase is less than Biden’s original Build Back Better Plan, which did not pass in Congress. This plan would have included a Pell Grant maximum increase to $7,045.

    The Case For Expansion

    One argument for expansion of the Pell Federal Grant Program is that there are instances of unmet need for low-income students. This occurs when grants are added to a student’s expected family contribution (EFC), yet still fall short of the institution’s cost of attendance (COA). Many low-income students are hindered from attending college since they need to find additional means of paying (loans, earnings, etc.), contributing to the racial and socioeconomic gaps within higher education. 78% of students from the highest quintile of socioeconomic status seek a 4-year degree, while only 42% of students from the lowest quintile of socioeconomic status pursue a 4-year degree. This additional aid can also help increase the rate of college completion for low-income students, as these grants can be used on basic need essentials such as housing, food, and healthcare giving these students the chance to focus solely on their education.

    The Case Against Expansion

    One argument against further expanding the program is that policies driving down college costs and different alternatives may be more effective than putting more money into the Pell Grant Program. In the 2020 fiscal year, expenditure on the Federal Pell Grant was over 29 billion dollars. A more market-based approach by policymakers may be more efficient in making college more affordable. This could be seen in additional funding going towards lowering college tuition costs through regulating for-profit colleges, creating a private lending market to drive down tuition prices, and other similar measures as opposed to expanding the Pell Grant Program.

  • What is the Hyde Amendment?

    What is the Hyde Amendment?

    Abortion is a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy. It is important to differentiate between an illegal and a legal abortion. A legal induced abortion is defined by the CDC as a procedure performed by a licensed medical professional performed within the states regulation as means to terminate a pregnancy. On the other hand, an illegal, unsafe abortion is defined as a procedure as means to termine a pregnancy often performed by individuals who are not properly trained or in conditions that are not in minimal compliance with medical standards. In 1976, the Hyde Amendment was passed which states that federal Medicaid funds cannot be used to pay for an abortion unless the person’s life is at risk or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. 

    Abortions have been taking place in the United States from as early as the 1600s. Although reproductive care was widely unregulated around this time, midwives and other skills professionals performed these abortions. In the 19th century, physicians led a successful movement to criminalize abortion nationally. The abortion reform movement blossomed in the 1960s, and 11 states legalized abortion. In 1973, Roe v. Wade (recently overturned as of June 2022) established the legal, constitutional right to abortion nationwide.

    Why do people get abortions?

    There are a myriad of reasons why people seek (or need) to receive an abortion. While there are some that seek abortions due to medical reasons or health anomalies, there are others that seek abortions because the pregnancy was unintended. Other reasons for looking to get an abortion include being unable to financially support a child, disruption of work or school, absence of a partner, previous responsibilities, personal or fetus’s health, etc. 

    What role does healthcare insurance play in abortion?

    Healthcare insurance covering abortion services, like many other healthcare options, are dependent on state legislation, as well as on other programs such as Medicaid, employer-sponsored insurance and other private insurance programs. Medicaid is a federal-state program that provides coverage for millions of people living under the poverty line, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and those with disabilities. In 1976, the Hyde Amendment was introduced and in 2010 reinforced by President Obama which limited the use of federal funds for abortion services. Employers provide health insurance to employees in two ways.

    1. Fully-funded programs refer to those where the employer purchases a health insurance program on behalf of the employees and is in charge of paying a monthly premium to the insurer.
    2. Self-funded insurance plans are those where the employer assumes financial risk and functions as the insurer of employees. 

    Fully-funded programs are regulated by both federal and state governments whereas self-funded plans are only regulated by the federal government. Some states, like Oregon and New York, have mandated that health insurance plans cover abortion while other states, like Alabama and Arkansas, barely make exceptions for cases of life, rape and incest. 

    Hyde Amendment 

    The Hyde Amendment limits the use of federal funds for abortion. Shortly after the national legalization of abortion via Roe v. Wade, federal funds were originally available to cover abortion services for those depending on federally funded healthcare programs such as Medicaid. Medicaid is the largest federal-state funded program that provides healthcare to millions of vulnerable Americans, and 1 in 5 Americans receive care under Medicaid.

    Arguments For and Against the Hyde Amendment

    Perspectives on the Hyde Amendment tend to fall along pro-abortion or anti-abortion lines. Those that oppose abortion on principle tend to favor any policy which limits legal access to abortion. Those that believe abortion is a personal decision tend to oppose any policy which limits legal access.

    Outside of the traditional pro- and anti-abortion debate, some additional arguments come into play specific to the Hyde Amendment. Some who believe abortion is a personal choice also believe that it is not a good use of taxpayer money, and do not want the federal government to fund abortions. In addition, Medicaid provides healthcare for 20% of women of reproductive age, including 30% of Black women and 24% of Hispanic women. For this reason, some oppose the Hyde Amendment because they believe it disproportionately impacts low income women and women of color, reinforcing socio economic inequities.

    The right to abortion and abortion itself continues to be a controversial topic in the United States. Although no longer a constitutional right, many continue to speak on it and how recent decisions and past (such as the Hyde Amendment) will continue to  affect those in need of an abortion.

  • Abortion History and Access in the US

    Abortion History and Access in the US

    This brief was originally published by Maisie Talbot on February 10, 2022. It was updated and republished by Zachariah Seecoomer on July 4, 2022.

    Abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy, which can be carried out via two different methods: medication abortion and in-clinic abortion. Medication abortion consists of two different types of medication: mifepristone and misoprostol. The effectiveness of this method ranges from 94% – 98%, while the effectivesness of in-clinic abortion is 99% . After the 12th week of pregnancy, it becomes more difficult to find a provider who will provide both procedures; however, this ultimately depends on which US state the patient is in.

    Pre-Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision

    Illegal abortions were common before the judical decision handed down by Roe v. Wade, but they were not widely available to everyone. During the mid 1800’s, many states enacted laws restricting abortions. By 1900, abortion was illegal in all states, with the exception of circumstances where the mother’s life was in danger. At the time, the procedure elicited a high death toll due to unsafe methods, and the lack of antibiotics posed a risk of infection. By 1930, one fifth of the maternal mortality rate was due to unsafe abortions. During the 1950s to the 1960s, the rate of illegal abortions ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. 

    Access to safe abortion was not an easy task at this time, especially for low-income women. The high cost of having an abortion from a safe provider, the cost of the review process prior to the procedure (to acertain if the mother’s life was in danger), and the costs of travel increased the rates of self-induced abortion. This procedure presented health-related risks like sepsis, internal injuries, and mortality due to a lack of both medical skills and standards necessary for positive health outcomes.

    Roe v. Wade

    Jane Roe, a fictional name to protect the plaintiff’s identity, was an unmarried pregnant woman who filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas in 1970. Roe fought against the state law that outlawed abortion except for when the mother’s life was in danger if the pregnancy continued. Roe claimed that it infringed upon the right to ‘personal privacy’, and went against the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments. Roe won by a 7-2 majority in the Supreme Court in 1973, thus protecting a woman’s right to have an abortion without “extreme” government restrictions throughout the United States. There are certain specifications relating to the three trimesters of pregnancy within the Roe v. Wade decision:

    1. In the first trimester, the state may not regulate the woman’s choice to have an abortion; it is between the mother and the physician.
    2. During the second trimester, the state may place regulations on the procedure that are ‘reasonably related to maternal health’.
    3. At the third trimester, the state may regulate or exclude abortions entirely, but not if the mother’s life in in danger.

    Without Roe v. Wade, states could enact laws that further restrict the ability to receive a legal abortion. Currently, 22 states have laws restricting the ability to obtain an abortion, and on the alternate side, 15 states, along with D.C., have laws that protect legal abortion access. To check which states have restrictions, and to what extent, click here. 

    Health Implications

    According to the World Health Organization, unsafe abortions still pose a significant risk for maternal health across the world, with 7 million women admitted to the hospital every year as a result. The major long-term physical health impacts of unsafe abortion range from infection, haemorrhage, and injury to the genital tract and internal organs. 

    The American Psychological Association notes that having an abortion within the first trimester poses no more mental health risks than carrying a pregnancy to term. Women who are unable to access abortion are seen to experience higher levels of “anxiety, lower life satisfaction and lower self-esteem,” compared to women who were able to access one.

    Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) and women of color have the highest rates of abortion in the US, compared to women of higher socioeconomic status and white women. Unintended pregnancy rates among African Americans and Hispanic Americans with a low SES are high. 70% of all pregnancies among Black women are unintended, and 57% for Hispanic women, compared to 42% for White women. These statistics are mostly due to various social and cultural factors, and access to contraceptives if a major factor in unintended pregnancy.

    Current Events

    Restrictive Legislation

    The Texas Heartbeat Act was signed into law on May 19th, 2021 and enforced on September 1st, 2021. This law restricts abortion access after 6 weeks within the state of Texas. This law also allows private citizens to sue individuals who receive, provide, or otherwise abet an abortion past the 6 week mark for up to $10,000 in damages. The United States Department of Justice has sued the state of Texas for the Heartbeat Act, claiming it is invalid under the 14th Amendment, meaning no state can enforce a law that deprives an individual of privilege and immunity; the 14th amendment also prevents the state from depriving life, liberty, and property without due process. However, the Supreme Court rejected the case.

    A draft of a Supreme Court opinion, which is a legal decision, that would overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked on May 2nd, 2022. This verdict would greatly restrict abortion access on the grounds that abortion is not historically a Constitutional right. This would result in 13 states immediately banning abortion in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy (week 1 through week 26) given these states have trigger laws in place. Abortion trigger laws automatically ban or restrict abortion access if Roe v. Wade is revoked.

    Florida Govern Ron DeSantis further restricted abortion access through new legislation which takes effect July 1, 2022; abortion will now be banned after 15-week of pregnancy. Similar 15-week abortion bans were recently passed in Kentucky and Arizona as well.  

    In February and March of 2022, multiple restrictions on abortion medication or pills have been enacted in Kentucky, Wyoming, and South Dakota. These FDA-approved abortion medications are the most widely used form of abortion in the U.S, being responsible for an estimated 54% of abortions. According to the FDA, they are safe to use within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. The recent restrictions include prohibiting the use of abortion pills, the mailing of these medications, and physicians’ ability to prescribe the medications to these states. 

    Protective Legislature 

    In January 2022, the New Jersey state lawmakers introduced statuary protections in relation to abortion. Abortion statuary protections in New Jersey are state laws that guarantee a woman’s right to terminate the pregnancy, authorize healthcare professionals to prescribe abortion medication, and ensure insurance coverage for pregnancy terminating services. Similar legislation was passed in Colorado and Connecticut in April and May of 2022. In March 2022, a new law was passed in California increasing the economic accessibility of abortions. The law prohibits cost-sharing charges for abortion services by insurance companies. This means that abortion services are included in monthly insurance costs with no additional fees, such as copays. In addition, Oregon lawmakers have passed the Reproductive Health Equity Fund, allocating $15 million to organizations that provide abortions and to individuals in need of abortion services.

  • More Than Infrastructure: How the Freedom to Move Act aims to Open Railways to Opportunity

    More Than Infrastructure: How the Freedom to Move Act aims to Open Railways to Opportunity

    Introduction: The Need and Demand for Quality Public Transit

    Public transit ridership has increased 21% since 1997, the state of public transit systems across the United States is in overwhelming disarray. A growing number of riders depend on public transit, but they are often left with limited access to nearby, expansive transit options riddled with frequent delays, service interruptions, and unfit station stop conditions. According to The Federal Transit Administration’s Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges and Transit: Condition and Performance Report (24rd edition)(2021), 43.2% of Guideway Elements (tracks, tunnels, and bus guideways); 23.8% of Systems (train control, electrification, communications, and revenue collection); 14.7% of Maintenance Facilities (bus and rail maintenance buildings and equipment/storage yards); 19.7% of Vehicles (large buses, heavy/light rail, commuter rail cars); and 53.7% of Stations (rail and bus stations, platforms, walkways, shelters) are below the “State of Good Repair” (SGR). The percentages of these Asset Categories determined to be in “poor condition” are substantial as well—6.4% of Guideway Elements, 21.4% of Systems, 36.4% of Maintenance Facilities, 18.5% of Vehicles, and 5.3% of Stations. As the 6,800 transit systems across states continue to struggle to procure adequate funding to modernize, expand, and rehabilitate their transit systems, the Department of Transportation estimates that the current $105.1 billion backlog of repairs is estimated to marginally decrease by 3.7%, to 102.2 billion by 2036 if current spending on transit asset preservation and expansion ($11.6 billion and $7.2 billion, respectively) is maintained. 

    The impact of this backlog is costly. 45% of Americans have no access to public transit; 41.7% of U.S. households possess one vehicle or less, and the average U.S. household spent $10,000, or 17% of total household expenditures on transportation in 2014. As a result, carless, low-income individuals cannot reliably depend upon the nation’s transit systems to access higher education, work, or critical social services such as healthcare, legal assistance, and quality food markets. Black and brown citizens shoulder this cost disproportionately as 24% of public transit riders are African American—making them the second-largest group of riders despite making up 12% of the U.S. population—and 10% of African Americans rely on public transportation to commute to their jobs. 

    “White Flight,” Redlining, & Highway Creation Projects Historical Impact on Today’s Transit Systems

    “White Flight” describes the period following World War II (1940-70s) where whites’, unwilling to reside beside black and brown citizens, fled cities and other metropolitan areas in order to maintain segregated communities. As whites fled to suburban areas, policies such as the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 and other highway-creation projects became the legislative focus of President Eisenhower and Congress, in order to provide these newly white-inhabited suburbs with access to cities. Creating these highways often involved bulldozing black neighborhoods, further intensifying segregation between white and black communities. According to The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Travel Patterns of People of Color, it wasn’t just whites that fled metropolitan areas; employment opportunities left with them, thus resulting in black and brown communities struggling to find high-skilled, well-paying work nearby. As a result of being “geographically mismatched,” unable to purchase homes in affluent, job-rich suburbs due to racially discriminatory policies in the housing market such as redlining, and owning personal vehicles at significantly lower rates than whites, black Americans and other minorities were and continue to be forced to procure the lower-skilled jobs in closer proximity to them. In this way, white-focused urban renewal projects and housing policies, as well as the push toward car-based travel, have stunted economic mobility for people of color.

    Current Effect on Black Communities, Non-Racial Minorities, Environment, & National Economy

    The ramifications of such policy decisions have a disproportionate effect on black Americans. On average, 14% of black households’ pretax income is consumed by transportation costs, and low-income black households spend 30% of their pretax income on transportation costs. The lack of efficient, expansive, and inexpensive transit options poses a barrier to such groups who struggle to travel to access opportunities and services. Black households rely on public transit the most among all races and ethnicities, as 20% of black households do not have access to an automobile and 14% fewer jobs were located near black residents in major metropolitan areas between 2000 and 2012. The burdens of transportation costs have driven people of all races and incomes to evade transit fares—an act criminalized in many states that could land evaders in jail. In line with other policing trends, black and brown riders are disproportionately fined, arrested, and even brutalized by transit police. 

    Racial minorities aren’t the only ones to suffer from the nation’s poor-quality transit systems; rural communities, the environment, and the nation’s economy, also take a hit. According to data in the Transit Cooperative Research Program’s (TCRP) “Report 266: An Update on Public Transportation’s Impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, public transportation saves the United States 6 billion gallons of gasoline annually. In addition, communities that invest in public transit reduce the nation’s carbon emissions by 63 million metric tons annually. APTA’s “Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment: 2020 Update reports that public transportation is an $80 billion industry that employs more than 448,000 people. Every $1 invested in public transportation generates $5 in economic returns, and home values also increase near public transportation.

    The Freedom to Move Act, Other Policy Recommendations, & the Debate Surrounding Transit Funding and Expansion Methods

    While there is a consensus amongst voters of all partisan backgrounds that public transit should be prioritized, legislators are divided on the extent to which funding should be allocated to revamp and expand America’s transit systems, and how this funding should be procured. In a 2020 national Survey collected by Data for Progress, 66% of voters believe their own communities would benefit from expanding public transit while 77% of voters believe the US overall would benefit from expanding public transit. Democratic legislators, whose party platform traditionally emphasizes political values such as racial equity, environmental justice, and maintaining necessary social services, largely support expanding the federal budget allocated to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Republican legislators tend to view public transportation spending as less of a political priority because the majority of their constituents rely on highways and car-based travel. 

    Introduced by Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) in the House and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) in the Senate, the Freedom to Move Act aims to award up to $5 billion in five-year grants to states and localities that implement an environmentally conscious, expansive, fare-free transit system. By incentivizing participants through grants, the act aims to provide both racial and environmental justice to underserved communities through alleviating the financial burden of fares; eliminating disproportionate and excessive punishment for fare evasion; expanding access to safe, accessible, frequent, and reliable transit; and reducing traffic congestion and pollution. While many laud the Act for tying infrastructural improvements to racial and environmental justice, some critics oppose it because they feel eliminating fares would not only increase the current spending backlog, but make transit unsafe by attracting trouble-causing youth, drunks, addicts, and homeless riders. Supporters of the act argue that since fare revenue currently only accounts for 30% of transit systems’ funding, state budgets, with increased aid, can manage without collecting revenue.

    Although split on the Freedom to Move Act, legislators across both sides of the aisle support the recently expired Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, and the newly enacted Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The FAST Act authorized $305 billion in federal grants over fiscal years 2016 through 2020 to the DOT to dramatically revamp highways, motor vehicle/freight safety, and public transportation. Its public transit provisions increased annual funding for FTA’s State of Good Repair program for rail from $2.1 billion to $2.5 billion and increased funding for the FTA’s Bus and Bus Facilities program by 89% over the life of the bill. Because of these significant increases in funding, many Democrats and Republicans advocate for the bill to be extended for a second time. 

    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law authorizes up to $108 billion for public transportation over fiscal years 2022 through 2026, the largest federal investment in public transportation in the nation’s history. The measure has four priorities: safety, modernization, climate consciousness, and equity. Many critique these bipartisan measures because of their failure to specifically address the burden of transportation costs. Additionally, some are concerned with the federal government and other public investment sources’ historic inability to consistently meet the funding needs for state transit systems, and advocate for public-private partnerships, or P3’s. P3’s are contracts between a public or governmental agency and a private entity that facilitates greater participation by the private entity in the delivery and operation of an infrastructure project, facility, or service. While supporters of P3’s find that collaboration with the private sector can promote a more free market and in turn cultivate innovation in infrastructure, some doubt the level of oversight governmental agencies will exert throughout project development and implementation. Such critics argue that while these partnerships can expedite transit development and rehabilitation, profit-driven private companies may lead projects away from centering transit development and expansion around racial, economic, and environmental justice.

  • Gender Equality in West Africa: Legislation Versus Lived Experience

    Gender Equality in West Africa: Legislation Versus Lived Experience

    From Burkina Faso’s Code of Persons and Family, stipulating equal inheritance for brothers and sisters, to Mali’s state-manded electoral gender quotas, requiring at least 30% of candidates on electoral lists to be women, eye-catching progressive policy is perceived as a beacon of change in regions like West Africa. However, statutory legislation often conflicts with lived experience for women in these areas where women’s rights have been stifled since colonization. Burkina Faso’s Family Code does not apply to women married under customary law and Mali’s electoral quotas coexist with customary laws that limit women’s autonomy, rendering them virtually ineffective in boosting female representation. While it is important to recognize progressive policy successes in West Africa, it is equally critical to avoid muting the voices of those still suffering despite legislation.

    Definitions

    For the purposes of this article, statutory law is defined as legislation passed by legislative bodies in West Africa, as well as international or continental treaties, conventions, and charters signed or ratified by West African nations. Conversely, customary law consists of traditional or religious rules and practices accepted as law by a specific culture. This article adopts the conceptualization of West Africa as defined by the African Union and African Development Bank; the 15 countries of Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo. Women’s rights is a complex and multifaceted term, but this article focuses on the four core dimensions of women’s rights as outlined in the OPEC Social institutions and Gender Index (SIGI), a global measure of sociopolitical discrimination against women. These dimensions include family practices, physical integrity rights, access to financial resources, and civil liberties. 

    Statutory Law

    Many statutory policies have been created and ratified by West African nations in the past three decades, spanning all four dimensions of the SIGI. Several examples for each dimension are outlined below.

    Customary Law and Lived Realities

    Statutory policies often conflict with customary law and social practices in West Africa. This leaves room for significant abuses of the four SIGI dimensions of women’s rights. 

    Grassroots Social Norms Change 

    Given the clash between statutory laws and customary practices, efforts to promote women’s rights must be endogenous to local communities to be relevant and sustainable. West African women are not passive victims to policy; they are agents of change and critical actors in bridging the gap between their statutory and customary rights. Today, several West African grassroots organizations work to spread awareness about women’s rights in communities where customary law may tolerate abuse. One such organization is Ligue LIFE, a Beninese group whose awareness campaigns about child trafficking and domestic violence are being adapted and disseminated by the UN Democracy Fund. Another successful organization is Project Alert on Violence Against Women, created in 1999 by female activists in Nigeria. Project Alert administers school and church-based advocacy programs that partner with local schools and places of worship to train parents, teachers, and religious leaders how to recognize and respond to GBV. By taking a bottom-up approach to social norms change, these grassroots initiatives and others like them help to bridge the gap between women’s rights under customs and women’s rights under statutory law in West Africa.

    Conclusion

    While this article has illuminated the wide gap between West African women’s customary and statutory rights, it is important to note that not all statutory policies in West Africa are ineffective. Some laws have effected remarkable change, such as Senegal’s 2011 Gender Parity Law that increased female representation in the national government from 22.7% to 42.7% over one election cycle. Unfortunately, not all West African statutory policies have created such concrete change in the lives of women. Thus, it is critically important to consider how women’s rights as outlined by law and as experienced by women differ in everyday life. Moving forward, it seems that grassroots social norms change is a crucial tool in bridging this difference, especially when spearheaded by West African women who have the most to lose if the gap between customary and statutory rights remains. 

  • The LGBTQIA+ Community and the Criminal Justice System

    The LGBTQIA+ Community and the Criminal Justice System

    Brief Historical Overview

    During the early years of Colonial America, most states used death as a punishment for individuals who engaged in sodomy, known as a “crime against nature,”. In 1641, the first legal code in New England, the Body of Laws and Liberties, stated that “if any man lyeth with mankinde as he lyeth with a woman” then both of them should be put to death. Going against many of the other states, William Penn’s 1682 legal code in the Pennsylvania Quaker Colony became the first and only non-capital sodomy law, stating that any person convicted of sodomy was to be whipped, to forfeit a portion of their estate, and face imprisonment. However, this legal code did not last and, by 1693, all states deemed sodomy a capital offense. After the American Revolution and Pennsylvania’s reform, the 19th century found the penalty for sodomy reduced to hard labor and/or imprisonment. 

    Supreme Court Rulings

    During the 1900s, the LGBTQ+ community began to question the legality of laws and practices that targeted them. The 1958 Supreme Court case of One, Inc. v. Olesen reversed a circuit court ruling that found the publication of a magazine intended for a homosexual audience obscene and, therefore, not protected under the First Amendment. This case was the first time that the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling regarding homosexuality, ultimately finding that “speech in favor of homosexuals is not inherently obscene.”

    In 1962, the adoption of the Model Penal Code in Illinois decriminalized the federal crime of sodomy, removing consensual sodomy from law. The creation of this code, along with the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that held that the 14th Amendment “protected citizens from the government intruding on their sexual privacy within their own homes,” inspired eighteen states to change their sodomy laws. Although many states decriminalized sodomy, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1986 case of Bowers v. Hardwick that “there was no constitutional protection for acts of sodomy,” allowing states to continue to target individuals for what they considered indecent acts.

    In 2003, the Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas reversed the above ruling and held that “the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.” Up until this year, same-sex marriage was not ruled upon federally, so there was a divide between states that allowed same-sex marriage and states that did not. However, the 2013 case of Windsor v. United States found section three of the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) unconstitutional, holding that the “federal government cannot discriminate against married lesbian and gay couples for the purposes of determining federal benefits and protections.”

    On June 26, 2015, the landmark ruling in Obergefell v Hodges held that “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples.” 

    The LGBTQIA+ community within Policing & the Prison System

    On June 28, 1969, the New York City Police Deparment raided Stonewall Inn, a well-known gay club at the time. Before the incident that led to the Stonewall riots, the police were known to raid many gay bars, harrassing LGBTQ+ individuals for displaying public affection. Although sodomy laws and the criminalization/denial of same-sex relations have since been found unconstitutional, the United States still sees a disportotionate amount of individuals within the LGBTQ+ community incarcerated and arrested. 


    In the United States in 2019, LGBTQ+ youth represented 9.5% of the general youth population, but were overrepresented in the juvenile justice system, making up 20% of the entire system. This high rate of representation is continued into adulthood, where it was also found that members of the LGBTQ+ community are 2.25 times as likely to be arrested then their straight counterparts. While gay and bisexual men are 1.35 times as likely to be arrested compared to heterosexual men, bisexual women and lesbians are 4 times as likely be arrested compared to heterosexual women. These numbers may be representative of homeless LGBT youth, who were kicked out by their families, and the lack of safety the individuals may feel within their school system. Furthermore, certain policing practices, such as enforcement of prostitution laws, cause individuals of the LGBTQ+ community to be disproportionately targeted by law enforcement. 

    The LGBTQ+ are also overrepresented in the prison system. While 5.5% of men incarcerated identify as bisexual or gay, 33.3% of women identify as bisexual and lesbian. A study found that people of the LGBTQ+ community are more likely to be sentenced to longer periods of incarceration than straight individuals. Within their experiences in prison, many LGBTQ+ individuals claim to have been subjected to “inhumane” treatment, such as longer prison sentences than their heterosexual counterparts and the higher possibility of being put in solitary confinement. Furthermore, individuals who engage in same-sex activity, compared to heterosexuals inmates, are 10 times more likely to sexually victimized by their peers and 2.6 times as likely by prison staff.