ACE

Tag: policy

  • Understanding the Connected MOM Act: Federal Intervention in State Maternal Health Medicaid Coverage

    Understanding the Connected MOM Act: Federal Intervention in State Maternal Health Medicaid Coverage

    Introduction to Medicaid and Maternal Health Coverage

    Medicaid is a healthcare program designed to cover specific medical costs for individuals with lower incomes and limited resources. While the federal government sets baseline regulations and retains oversight authority over Medicaid programs, states maintain primary responsibility for program administration, which leads to variation in Medicaid coverage across the nation. Many state Medicaid programs offer insurance coverage for pregnant individuals through mechanisms such as presumptive eligibility. Presumptive eligibility allows certain vulnerable populations to receive coverage before their application for Medicaid is fully processed. For example, Iowa’s presumptive Medicaid coverage extends Medicaid benefits to all pregnant applicants while their eligibility is being determined, regardless of the final outcome.

    Maternal health remains a critical concern in the United States, where indicators such as preterm births and maternal mortality have continued to rise despite targeted policy interventions. A key factor in improving maternal health outcomes is access to high-quality prenatal care, yet adequate access to prenatal care is declining. A significant reason that many people cannot access adequate prenatal care is a lack of insurance coverage or sporadic insurance coverage during their pregnancy. Research emphasizes that increasing insurance coverage for pregnant people can improve access to prenatal care, which can improve maternal health outcomes.


    While federal regulations mandate certain Medicaid services, including maternal healthcare, the specifics of maternal health coverage are left largely to the discretion of individual states. For instance, Iowa’s presumptive eligibility for pregnant people continues until the applicant receives a determination of full Medicaid eligibility. In contrast, Minnesota’s hospital-based presumptive coverage for pregnant people only lasts for a month. 

    S.141 and the Scope of Federal Intervention

    Introduced on January 16, 2025, S.141—or the Connected MOM Act—aims to identify and address barriers to Medicaid coverage of health monitoring devices in an effort to improve maternal health outcomes. Given that health monitoring devices can expand access to prenatal care by allowing physicians to remotely monitor health metrics, the bill aims to explore how pregnant people might face challenges in obtaining these devices. The bill proposes investigating state-level obstacles to coverage of remote physiologic devices, which include: 

    • Blood pressure cuffs (used to monitor blood pressure)
    • Glucometers (used to assess blood glucose levels)
    • Pulse oximeters (used to measure blood oxygen saturation)
    • Thermometers (used to track body temperature)

    These devices enable at-home monitoring of key health metrics, facilitating earlier intervention for dangerous pregnancy-related conditions. According to legal experts, such investigative efforts generate data that can inform and support future policy development. S.B. 141, which has received bipartisan support, is currently under review by the Senate Finance Committee.

    Perspectives on S.B. 141 and Federal Medicaid Interventions

    Investigative legislation like the Connected MOM Act allocates funding for evidence-gathering to guide future policy decisions. In this case, the bill aims to collect information on how states manage Medicaid coverage for remote physiologic devices that are critical during pregnancy, with the long-term goal of shaping federal Medicaid policies. While supporters of the Connected MOM Act argue that it will provide necessary insights to catalyze Medicaid expansion for pregnant people, others point to the rules and regulations of Medicaid which make it difficult for the federal government to intervene broadly in state Medicaid programs. Given the structural limits on federal influence over state-run Medicaid programs, broad national reforms are often considered too costly or unlikely to yield systemic change. This dynamic was evident in the fate of H.R. 3055—the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act—which failed to advance beyond the committee stage. Supporters of the Connected MOM Act argue that its incremental, investigative approach will help justify future reforms without being perceived as broad federal overreach. 

    Conclusion

    Each state administers its own Medicaid program, resulting in variations in coverage for certain medical devices, including remote health monitoring devices. Given the importance of these devices in expanding access to prenatal care, S.B. 141 seeks to investigate the best course of action for improving coverage of them across the nation. As it moves through committee, S.B. 141 may give insights on how policymakers can strategically navigate limits on federal power over state health programs.

  • Understanding Title 42: The Intersection of Public Health and Immigration

    Understanding Title 42: The Intersection of Public Health and Immigration

    What is Title 42?

    Title 42, established under the Public Health Service Act of 1944, grants the U.S. government authority to expel individuals recently present in a country with a communicable disease. Section 362 of the act allows the Surgeon General to halt the “introduction of persons or property” to prevent the spread of disease. While rarely used in modern history, Title 42 became a key immigration enforcement tool during the first Trump administration.

    The first recorded use of Title 42 occurred in 1929 to restrict entry from China and the Philippines during a meningitis outbreak. Decades later, on March 20, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) invoked the policy to limit the spread of COVID-19 across state and national borders.

    Implementation and Impact

    During the first two years of its enforcement, Title 42 was used around 2.5 million times to deport migrants entering the U.S. It gave border control agents the authority to expel migrants without offering the opportunity for them to seek asylum, although families and children traveling alone were exempt from this provision. Beginning in January 2023, migrants coming from Mexico could request a Title 42 exemption through the CBP One app if they met vulnerability criteria.  

    In April 2022, the CDC announced that Title 42 was no longer necessary and would be terminated in May 2022, citing increased vaccination rates and improved treatments for COVID-19. However, several Republican-led states challenged this decision, and the case went to the Supreme Court. While the Court allowed continued enforcement of Title 42 before it heard arguments, it dismissed the case the following year. Title 42 expired in May 2023.

    Arguments in Favor of Title 42

    Supporters of Title 42, including the Trump administration, argued that the policy was necessary to limit the spread of COVID-19 in detention centers and, by extension, within the United States. In a 2020 briefing, President Trump stated that his actions to secure the northern and southern border under Title 42 would “save countless lives.” The Trump administration’s declaration of a COVID-19 national emergency on March 18th, 2020, framed stricter immigration policy as a matter of public health.

    Some states also supported Title 42 to prevent a surge in migration that could overwhelm their border facilities. Texas, for example, argued that lifting the policy would place an undue burden on the state, leading it to implement Operation Lone Star, which allocated state resources to border security.

    The policy also received occasional bipartisan support, and was willfully enforced by the Biden administration until the CDC attempted to terminate Title 42 in April 2022. In early 2022, at least nine Democrats argued that Title 42 should be extended. President Biden also debated whether or not the policy should end. In January 2023, he expanded the scope of Title 42 to include migrants originating from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Venezuela. 

    Arguments Against Title 42

    Critics of Title 42 argue that it violates international norms, particularly Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes the right to seek asylum. While the U.S. did not ratify the declaration, it played a key role in its creation and remains a signatory. Additionally, since 1980, U.S. law has recognized the right to seek asylum, rendering Title 42’s restrictions controversial in the context of global and domestic asylum norms.

    Public health experts also questioned the policy’s effectiveness in controlling COVID-19. There is no statistical evidence linking Title 42 expulsions to a reduction in COVID-19 cases. Instead, critics suggest that overcrowding in detention centers may have worsened public health conditions. One migrant described being held in “crowded conditions” for days without COVID-19 testing before being transported in similarly congested vehicles. Additionally, a senior advisor to the Trump administration pushed for the use of Title 42 before COVID-19, raising concerns about whether the policy was implemented for genuine public health reasons. 

    Opponents also contend that Title 42 subjected migrants to precarious conditions. Doctors Without Borders emphasized that mass expulsions left individuals without access to shelter, food, medical care, or legal representation. A fire in a migrant detention center, which killed 39 people, underscored these risks; surveillance footage showed detainees trapped in locked cells while guards failed to intervene. Critics also argue that the policy’s implementation often resulted in asylum seekers being detained in poor conditions and returned to the dangers they had fled.

    Future Prospects

    While Title 42 was invoked as a measure to protect public health, its effectiveness in achieving those goals remains debated. Proponents argue it was an effective solution that addressed co-occurring public health and immigration crises, while opponents argue it invited human rights violations and had a counterproductive impact on public health. Internal documents collected from the Trump administration in February 2025 suggest that President Trump aims to reinstate Title 42 policies, labeling unauthorized migrants as “public health risks” that “could spread communicable diseases like tuberculosis.” The Trump administration previously shut down the CBP One app, which assisted migrants in requesting Title 42 exemptions. The policy continues to evoke mixed reactions, and if reintroduced, past experiences may provide insights into its potential impact.

  • Pros and Cons of the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023

    Pros and Cons of the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023

    Background Information

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the patent landscape, creating an influx of patent applications that mirrors a rise in modern-day innovation. However, the discussion of patentable inventions under U.S. law lags behind. The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 (PERA) aims to address this by reversing court rulings that have narrowed the scope of patent eligibility in emerging fields like AI. Ultimately, PERA stands at the intersection of technology, law, and political ideology, shaping the role of government in maintaining intellectual property (IP).

    Supreme Court decisions in Mayo v. Prometheus and Alice v. CLS are widely recognized as turning points in patent law. The cases, which restricted patent eligibility for abstract ideas and natural laws, marked the first narrowing of patent eligibility since the 1950s. PERA would “eliminate all judicial exceptions” to patent law in an attempt to remedy the confusion caused by the Mayo and Alice rulings. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) in 2023. Its House companion was introduced by Representatives Scott Peters (D-CA) Kevin Kiley (R-CA) in 2024. While it received bipartisan support and a hearing in the Senate Intellectual Property Subcommittee, PERA ultimately died in committee at the end of the 118th Congress. 

    PERA presents three key advantages: 

    1. Economic and Innovation Benefits: Boosts innovation and economic growth.
    2. International Competitiveness:  Secures U.S. innovation against global competitors.
    3. Expansion of AI and other emerging technologies:  Clarifies AI patent eligibility to strengthen U.S. leadership on the global stage.

    In terms of economic and innovative benefits, the United States Patent and Trademark Office advocates for PERA as a catalyst for innovation. It specifically states that small to medium-sized firms “need clear intellectual property laws that incentivize innovation…[as it’s] critical for job creation, economic prosperity,” in addition to several extended impacts. Furthermore, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), argues that PERA enacts clearer policies that will generate efficient product development and innovation, improving both industry standards and marginal utility for the consumer. Wilson Sonsini, a nonpartisan outlet that conducts the legal analysis, finds that the bill would in fact reverse the stagnation of innovation. In a written testimony submitted to the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, law professor Adam Mossoff argued that PERA is essential for restoring American dominance in global innovation and patent sectors.

    PERA not only aims to improve U.S. innovation and investment, but also clarifies AI patentability to bolster America’s edge on the global stage. According to Republican Representative Kevin Kiley, the U.S. must expand patentability to compete with China, emphasizing PERA as a key to gaining a competitive edge through clearer patent laws. In an interview with Representative Kiley, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) found that China’s approach to intellectual property poses a significant threat to American innovation and prosperity, strengthening the case for PERA. Senator Coons, a PERA co-sponsor, believes that the bill is necessary to help the U.S. catch up to Europe and China in the realm of AI patent law. 

    Other supporters argue that PERA’s expansion of patentability will open the door to advancement in domestic AI technology. A multinational law firm argues that expanding patent eligibility to AI models and business methods is crucial for the development of the U.S. technology industry. By broadening patentability, PERA can reduce the backlog of unsuccessful patents, sparing inventors from having to revalidate their claims. To reinforce this, the global law firm McDermott Will & Emery contends that PERA reduces ambiguity in patent eligibility by defining AI-related patents and human involvement in AI inventions.

    However, while PERA offers significant benefits for innovation, global competitiveness, and emerging technologies, it also raises concerns about potential drawbacks, including the risk of overly broad patents and unintended legal complexities. 

    PERA presents three key disadvantages:

    1. Overbroad Patentability: Risks limiting access to life-saving technologies.
    2. Hurting Small Inventors: Creates an ambiguous legal landscape that only large corporations can afford to navigate.
    3. Ethical and Global Concerns: Conflicts with global patent norms, risking international relations. 

    The NYU Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law highlights concerns that broadening patent eligibility could negatively impact the life sciences sector by creating barriers between consumers and newly-patented technologies. It argues that PERA undermines the balance between rewards gained from innovation and public accessibility to products they depend on. Another critique from the Center for Innovation Promotion finds that PERA disrupts established legal standards, creating uncertainty in the patent system. Its broad eligibility could stifle innovation by exacerbating patent disruptions instead of encouraging progress and innovation. 

    Other critics worry that PERA could negatively impact small businesses. U.S. Inventor, an inventor’s rights advocacy group, critiques the bill for creating a complex legal landscape that only large corporations can afford to navigate. It argues that PERA lacks definitions for most of its crucial terms will only create more confusion, stating, “Investment into anything that risks falling into PERA’s undefined ineligibility exclusions will be hobbled.”

    PERA also raises ethical concerns, particularly in its treatment of genetic material, which may conflict with international patent standards. According to the NYU Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, these discrepancies could lead to tensions between U.S. patent law and global practices, disrupting international collaborations and agreements. The BIOSECURE Report emphasizes PERA’s potential for significant harm to global patent standardization, as countries may struggle to reconcile U.S. policies with their own systems. These challenges could strain international relations, as nations may view PERA’s approach as a threat to their sovereignty and global patent harmony.

    The Status Quo and Future of PERA

    PERA was proposed in a time of heightened awareness and discussion of IP policy. With regard to national security concerns, the Foreign Affairs House Report finds Chinese IP theft against U.S. companies, emphasizing China’s competitive threat in innovation. Similarly, Reuters reports on Tesla’s IP theft case, showcasing ongoing challenges in protecting American technology. These challenges in protecting American innovation set the stage for potential policy shifts under a Trump presidency. According to IP Watchdog, changes in IP law could influence public trust and perceptions of America’s stance on innovation and patent protection. However, as Wolf Greenfield Think Tank notes, broader geopolitical implications, especially regarding competition with China in biotech and AI patents, may not fully align with Trump’s campaign vision. Additionally, Senate Judiciary reports highlight how bipartisan concerns over innovation could shape the future prospects of bills like PERA, with legislative gridlock potentially influencing amendments throughout the current presidential term and beyond. This gridlock could ultimately lead to a slower passing of patent-related legislation.

    Conclusion

    While PERA aims to expand patent eligibility and boost economic growth, critics are wary of overbroad patents, harm to small inventors and businesses, and geopolitical conflicts. Striking a balance between innovation, equity, and competition remains essential to ensuring a patent system that fosters progress without preventing accessibility.

  • Maternal Mortality Review Committees and the PMDR Reauthorization of 2023: Key Perspectives

    Maternal Mortality Review Committees and the PMDR Reauthorization of 2023: Key Perspectives

    Introduction

    The United States faces a maternal mortality crisis, with maternal death rates significantly higher than other high-income nations. According to the CDC, maternal mortality disproportionately affects Black, Indigenous, and rural communities, with Black women experiencing maternal deaths at 2.6 times the rate of White women. The factors contributing to these disparities are complex and include unequal access to quality healthcare, socioeconomic barriers, and more. Despite advancements in healthcare, 80% of maternal deaths are preventable through timely medical intervention and comprehensive data collection. 

    What are MMRCs?

    State-based Maternal Mortality Review Committees (MMRCs) have been shown to play a pivotal role in analyzing maternal deaths to recommend evidence-based interventions. MMRCs are multidisciplinary teams that examine maternal deaths occurring during pregnancy or within one year postpartum. They utilize comprehensive data sources, including medical records, autopsy reports, and social service information. MMRCs assess preventability and contributing factors, allowing them to identify patterns and propose targeted policy solutions. Their review process centers on critical questions related to medical factors, social determinants, delays in care, and provider bias. By systematically addressing these factors, MMRCs generate insights that inform strategies to reduce preventable maternal deaths, which comprise 20% to 50% of all maternal deaths in the U.S.

    However, MMRCs face inconsistent funding and regulatory barriers, limiting their ability to track and analyze maternal deaths across states. Disparities in data collection methods and access to comprehensive patient records further hinder efforts to address maternal health inequities. Some states lack the authority to access certain medical records, while others experience delays in data sharing, reducing the timeliness and effectiveness of recommendations. Without consistent federal funding, many MMRCs struggle to maintain operations, particularly in rural and underserved areas, where maternal health disparities are often most pronounced. 

    Introduction to the Preventing Maternal Deaths Reauthorization Act

    The Preventing Maternal Deaths Reauthorization Act of 2023 (PMDR) was introduced to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce by Congresswoman Robin Kelly (D-IL) on May 18, 2023. The bill passed out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee in Fall 2023 and passed the House with bipartisan support in March 2024. However, the bill failed to pass the Senate before the end of the legislative calendar, rendering the bill “dead”. The reauthorization built upon the original Preventing Maternal Deaths Act of 2018, which helped establish and fund state-based Maternal Mortality Review Committees (MMRCs) to investigate maternal deaths and identify preventable causes. It sought to extend funding for MMRCs, enhance data collection, and address racial disparities in maternal health outcomes through the following provisions:

    1. Extending funding for state-level MMRCs to continue investigating maternal deaths
    2. Authorizing $58 million annually for the CDC to support state-level efforts
    3. Enhancing data collection on factors related to maternal health outcomes, particularly for minority populations
    4. Strengthening community-based interventions to reduce racial and ethnic disparities 
    5. Enhancing coordination among agencies to implement evidence-based solutions
    6. Expanding research on social determinants of maternal health 

    Arguments in Support

    Proponents of the PMDR Act of 2023 argue that the bill provides critical support for tried and true interventions to prevent maternal deaths. They emphasize that scientific literature identifies state-based MMRCs as the “gold standard” for preventing maternal deaths due to their multidisciplinary analysis. However, inconsistent funding threatens the effectiveness of MMRCs, particularly in states with high maternal mortality rates. In a letter to Congress, 125 public health and social services associations urged legislators to treat the PMDR as a top-priority bill, stressing the nation’s consistently high maternal mortality rate. Several national associations, including the American Medical Association, argue that continued federal funding is crucial to preventing maternal deaths. They highlight that past funding gaps resulted in reduced MMRC operations, hospital closures, and increased barriers to care. Supporters contend that the only way to ensure MMRCs can continue their vital work without funding disruptions is to pass the PMDR.

    Proponents of the PMDR Act also highlight its potential to promote health equity. Beyond identifying risk factors, MMRCs are critical in addressing racial, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities in maternal health by filling critical knowledge gaps on the drivers of maternal mortality in underserved populations. The PMDR Act directly supports these efforts by requiring MMRCs to report on disparities in maternal care and propose solutions. Federal support through this bill enables MMRCs to strengthen provider training, expand access to prenatal care, and address structural barriers contributing to maternal deaths. Without reauthorization, proponents argue, efforts to close maternal health gaps would be fragmented, leaving vulnerable populations without necessary protections.

    Arguments in Opposition

    The most prominent critique of the PMDR Act is that it focuses too heavily on MMRCs. Critics voiced concerns about MMRCs’ inconsistency, lack of accountability, and failure to acknowledge all social determinants of health. 

    Opponents highlight that legal and logistical challenges, such as data collection issues and lack of legal protections for participants, can create disparities in MMRC operations. Rural populations, who face higher maternal mortality rates and limited access to care, are often overlooked in MMRCs, further exacerbating disparities. Additionally, bureaucratic barriers and state laws limiting community involvement in MMRCs reduce their effectiveness in addressing maternal health challenges. 

    Others argue that MMRCs lack accountability, particularly regarding inclusivity and equitable decision-making. Advocates contend that MMRCs often exclude community representatives or organizations that challenge the status quo, prioritizing clinical expertise over individuals with lived experience. This exclusion can foster distrust, as community members may feel their knowledge and perspective are undervalued. The lack of compensation for community members to attend all-day MMRC meetings – unlike salaried clinicians – adds another barrier, further entrenching inequalities. Laws that impose burdensome requirements on MMRCs further complicate the process and reduce diversity in ideas. Opponents of the PMDR contend that these factors contribute to a lack of accountability from MMRCs, preventing them from fully creating lasting and inclusive solutions. 

    Finally, critics assert that MMRCs often fail to adequately address the underlying social determinants of health that contribute to maternal mortality. While MMRCs focus on clinical factors, such as healthcare quality and implicit bias, they can lack the frameworks to assess other social determinants like housing instability, food insecurity, or socioeconomic status. Often, these factors are deeply rooted in the broader healthcare system and community environments. Critics argue that the absence of these social factors in MMRC reviews limits the committees’ ability to develop holistic prevention solutions. Reports suggest MMRCs could benefit from incorporating a health equity framework and utilizing socio-spatial measures to address the full spectrum of challenges mothers face. Without this consideration, critics argue that MMRCs fall short of offering effective solutions to reduce maternal deaths and disparities. 

    Due to these critiques of MMRCs, critics of the PMDR argue that the bill should allocate more funding toward alternate interventions 

    Conclusion 

    The Preventing Maternal Deaths Reauthorization Act of 2023 represented an effort to extend investment in evidence-based maternal health interventions. While it received strong bipartisan support in the House, it died before a vote in the Senate, leaving MMRC funding uncertain in the years to come. While the bill was applauded for its potential to expand access to maternal care and fill critical knowledge gaps on maternal mortality factors, critics argued it placed too much emphasis on an intervention that lacked consistency and accountability to marginalized communities. 

    Future Outlook

    The Trump administration has implemented significant changes to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), including halting medical research funding and restructuring the agency, which has led to delays and uncertainties in grant approvals. These actions have raised concerns about the future of critical medical research, including studies on maternal health. Given these developments, the future of the PMDR may depend on an evolving public health funding environment. Advocacy groups and policymakers will need to collaborate to ensure that maternal health research and interventions receive the necessary support, despite the current challenges in the federal funding landscape.

  • Pros and Cons of S.B. 3732: The Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act

    Pros and Cons of S.B. 3732: The Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act

    Introduction

    The rise in the prevalence of artificial intelligence (AI) has had significant impacts on the environment. This includes the electricity required to power the technology, the release of hundreds of tons of carbon emissions, and the depletion of freshwater resources for data center cooling. For example, AI data centers in the U.S. use about 7,100 liters of water per megawatt-hour of energy they consume. 

    Demand for energy to power AI is rising. One study predicts that AI data centers will increase from about 3% of the US’s energy usage in 2023 to about 8% in 2030. However, there is also a potential for AI to have positive impacts on the environment. AI is a powerful tool in promoting energy transitions, with a 1% increase in AI development corresponding to a 0.0025% increase in energy transition, a 0.0018% decrease in ecological footprint, and a 0.0013% decrease in carbon emissions. Still, the scientific community and general public lack knowledge about the true environmental implications of AI. Senate Bill 3732, or the Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act of 2024, aims to fill this knowledge gap. 

    The Bill

    The Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act was introduced in February 2024 by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA). A House companion bill, H.R. 7197, was introduced simultaneously by Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA). The bill has four main clauses that instruct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Secretary of Energy, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy to:

    1. Initiate a study on the environmental impacts of AI
    2. Convene a consortium of intellectuals and stakeholders to create recommendations on how to address the environmental impacts of AI
    3. Create a system for the voluntary reporting of the environmental impacts of AI
    4. Report to Congress the findings of the consortium, describe the system of voluntary reporting and make recommendations for legislative and administrative action

    This bill seeks to fill the gaps in existing research by commissioning comprehensive studies of both the negative and potential positive environmental impacts of artificial intelligence. It will also employ experts to guide lawmakers in creating effective future regulation of the AI industry. 

    Arguments in Favor

    Filling Gaps in Knowledge

    A key reason Data & Society, an NYC-based independent research institute, endorsed the bill was to fill existing gaps in research. They highlight the limited understanding of both the depth and scale of the impacts of AI on the environment as key areas that require more research. They also highlight the role of this proposed research initiative in determining how to limit the environmental impacts of AI. Tamara Kneese, a researcher for the organization, highlights that there is a lack of research that seeks to understand “the full spectrum of AI’s impacts,” which this bill would directly address. 

    Increasing Transparency in the Industry

    One of the arguments made by a co-sponsor of the legislation in the House of Representatives, Representative Beyer (D-VA), highlights how this bill would put the United States ahead in AI transparency work. Currently, the industry is not forthright about its environmental impact. For example, OpenAI has released no information about the process to create and train ChatGPT’s newest model, which makes it impossible to estimate its environmental impact. The voluntary reporting system created encourages that information to be reported, allowing for tracking of emissions and increased transparency in the industry. 

    Reducing Environmental Harm

    Another supporter of the bill, Greenpeace, views the bill as a way to protect against the environmental harm of new technology and address issues of environmental injustice. Erik Kojola, Greenpeace USA’s senior research specialist, says that this bill is “a first step in holding companies accountable and shedding light on a new technology and opaque industry”. Others, such as the Piedmont Environmental Council, view it as a step towards the implementation of well-informed regulation of AI. The bill’s fourth provision outlines that recommendations be made to Congress for the implementation of regulations of the industry, based on expert opinion and the research that the bill commissions. 

    Arguments Against

    Lacks Enforcement Mechanisms, Delayed Approach

    Critics argue that the bill relies too heavily on industry compliance by primarily using voluntary emissions reporting. In essence, there is no way of forcing companies to actually report their emissions from the working of the bill. There is also the argument that calling for more research only serves to delay taking concrete action to address climate change. The bill itself does little to stop pollution and usage of freshwater resources, and instead delays any action or regulation until detailed research can be conducted and further recommendations can be made. 

    Ignores AI’s Potential to Help the Environment

    Other critics argue that AI is constantly becoming more efficient and government intervention may hinder that. According to the World Economic Forum, AI is able to both optimize its own energy consumption as well as contribute to facilitating energy transitions. Opponents of S.B. 3732 hold that research should focus on improving efficiency within the industry as opposed to tracking its output to inform regulations. 

    Top-down Approach Sidelines Industry Leaders and Efforts

    Some opponents also critique the bill’s research- and information gathering-heavy approach. Critics argue that S.B. 3732 does little to create accountability within the industry and does not integrate existing measures to increase efficiency. They point to examples that show AI itself is being used to create informed climate change policy through analyzing climate impacts on poor communities and generating solutions. Critics argue that the bill largely ignores these efforts and input from industry leaders who say federal funds should be spent optimizing AI rather than regulating it. 

    Updates and Future Outlook

    While S.B. 3732 and its House companion bill were referred to several subcommittees for review, neither made it to the floor for a vote before the end of the 118th Congress and thus will need to be re-introduced in order to be passed in the future. Should the bill be passed into law, the feasibility of its implementation is uncertain given major funding cuts to key stakeholders such as the EPA under the current administration. Without proper government funding to conduct the research that the bill outlines, the efficacy of this research is likely to be weakened. 

    In addition, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Removing Barriers to American AI Innovation” in January 2025, which calls for departments and agencies to revise or rescind all policies and other actions taken under the Biden administration that are inconsistent with “enhancing America’s leadership in AI.”  In addition to taking an anti-regulation stance on AI, this executive order is the first step in a rapid proliferation of AI data centers that are to be fueled with energy from natural gas and coal. Given this climate, S.B. 3732 and similar bills face an uncertain future in the current Congress.

    Conclusion

    S.B. 3732 responds to the knowledge gap on AI’s environmental impacts by commissioning studies and encouraging reporting of AI-related energy benefits and drawbacks. Supporters of the bill view it as a crucial intervention to fill said information gaps, increase transparency, and address environmental harms through policy recommendations. Some opponents of the bill critique it as a stalling tactic for addressing climate change, while others contend the bill simply looks in the wrong place, focusing on AI industry compliance and existing impacts instead of encouraging innovation in the sector.

  • Pros and Cons of California SB-1047: The AI Regulation Debate

    Pros and Cons of California SB-1047: The AI Regulation Debate

    Background

    With the recent emergence of ChatGPT, artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed from an obscure mechanism to a widely-used tool in day-to-day life. Around 77% of devices integrate some form of AI in voice assistants, smart speakers, chatbots, or customized recommendations. Still, while at least half of Americans are aware of AI’s presence in their daily lives, many are unable to pinpoint how exactly it is used. For some, the rapid growth of AI has created skepticism and concern. Between 2021 and 2023, the proportion of Americans who expressed concern about AI increased from 37% to 52%. By 2023, only 10% of Americans were more excited than concerned about AI applications in their day-to-day lives. Today, legislators at the federal and state level are grappling with the benefits and drawbacks of regulating AI use and development. 

    California’s SB-1047: An Introduction

    One of the key players in AI development is the state of California, which houses 35 of the 50 most prominent AI companies in the world. Two cities in California, San Francisco and San Jose, account for 25% of all AI patents, conference papers, and companies worldwide. California has responded to the growing debate on AI use through legislative and governmental channels. In 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order establishing initiatives to study the benefits and drawbacks of the AI industry, train government employees on AI skills, and work with legislators to adapt policies for responsible AI development. 

    One such policy that gained attention is SB-1047, or the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act. The bill passed both chambers of the state legislature, but was vetoed by Governor Newsom in September 2024. Introduced by state senator Scott Weiner of San Francisco, SB-1047 aimed to establish safeguards in the development of large-scale AI models. Specifically, the bill applied to cutting-edge AI models that use a high level of computing power or cost more than $100 million to train. Its key provisions included:

    • Cybersecurity protections: Requires developers to take reasonable cybersecurity precautions to prevent unauthorized access to or unintended use of the AI model
    • Pre-release assessment: Requires developers to thoroughly test their AI model for potential critical harm before publicly releasing it. Establishes an annual third-party audit for all developers
    • “Kill switch”: Requires developers to create a capacity to “promptly enact a full shutdown” of the AI program in the case it risks damage to critical infrastructure
    • Safety protocol: Requires developers to create a written safety and security protocol, assign a senior professional to implement it, publish a redacted version, and send an unredacted version to the U.S. Attorney General upon request
    • Whistleblower protections: Prohibits developers from retaliating against employees who report violations of safety protocol internally or to government officials
    • CalCompute: Establishes a publicly-owned and -operated cloud computing infrastructure to “expand access to computational resources” for researchers and startups

    Pros of SB-1047

    One of the main arguments in favor of SB-1047 was that the bill encouraged responsible innovation. Proponents of the bill emphasized that it aligned with federal policy in targeting large-scale systems with considerable computing power, which pose the highest risk of harm due to their cutting-edge nature. They argued that the bill’s holistic approach to regulation, including preventative standards like independent audits and response protocol like the “kill switch” provision, make it difficult for developers to simply check a box stating they do not condone illegal use of their AI model. 

    Proponents also applauded the bill’s protections for whistleblowers at companies that develop advanced AI models. Given the lack of laws on AI development, general whistleblower protections that safeguard the reporting of illegal acts leave a gap of vulnerability for AI workers whose products are largely unregulated. Supporters say SB-1047 would have filled this gap by allowing employees to report potentially dangerous AI models directly to government officials without retaliation. In September 2024, over 100 current and former employees of major AI companies – many of which publicly advocated against the bill – sent a letter to Governor Newsom in support of the legislation’s protections. 

    Other supporters were enthusiastic about the bill’s establishment of CalCompute, a cloud computing infrastructure completely owned and operated by the public sector. Advocacy group Economic Security California praised CalCompute as a necessary intervention to disrupt the dominance of a “handful of corporate actors” in the AI sector. Other advocates emphasized that CalCompute would complement, rather than replace, corporations in providing supercomputing infrastructure. They argued that the initiative would expand access to AI innovation and encourage AI development for public good. 

    Another key argument in favor of SB-1047 is that the bill would have created a necessary blueprint for AI regulation, inspiring other states and even the federal government to implement similar protections. By signing the bill into law, proponents argue, California would have become the “first jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for governing advanced AI systems”. Countries around the world, including Brazil, Chile, and Canada, are looking at bills like SB-1047 to find ways to regulate AI innovation as its applications continue to expand. 

    Cons of SB-1047

    SB-1047 received criticism from multiple angles. While some labeled the bill an unnecessary roadblock to innovation, others argued for even stronger regulations.

    On one hand, the bill’s large scope was criticized for focusing too heavily on theoretical dangers of AI, hindering innovation that might lead to beneficial advancements. Opponents contended that some of the language in the bill introduced hypothetical scenarios, such as the creation and use of weapons of mass destruction by AI, with no regard to their low plausibility. Major companies like Google, Meta, and OpenAI voiced opposition to the bill, warning that the heavy regulations would stifle productivity and push engineers to leave the state. 

    Others criticized the bill for its potential impacts on academia and smaller startups. Fei-Fei Li, co-director of Stanford University’s Human-Centered AI Institute, argued that the regulations would put a damper on academic and public-sector AI research. Li also stated that the bill would “shackle open source development” by reducing the amount of publicly available code for new entrepreneurs to build off of – a fear that was echoed by national lawmaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

    On the other hand, some believe the bill did not go far enough in regulating cutting-edge AI. These critics pointed to provisions that exempt developers from liability if certain protocols are followed, which raised questions for them about the bill’s ability to hold developers accountable. They also criticized amendments that reduced or completely eliminated certain enforcement mechanisms such as criminal liability for perjury, stating such changes catered to the interests of large tech corporations. Critics argued that the bill’s vague definitions of “unreasonable risk” and “critical harm” leave ample room for developers to evade accountability. 

    Given the bill’s sweeping language in key areas, critics worried that it could either overregulate, or fail to regulate, AI effectively.

    Recent Developments

    On February 27th, 2025, SB-1047 sponsor Scott Weiner introduced a new piece of legislation on AI safety. The new bill, SB-53, was created with a similar intention of safeguarding AI development, but focuses specifically on the whistleblower protection and CalCompute provisions of the original bill.  

    While California continues to grapple with state-level regulations, the federal government has also taken steps to address AI. The Federal Communications Commission is using the 1980s Telephone Consumer Protection Act to restrict AI-generated human voices. The Federal Trade Commission has warned against AI misuse, including discrimination, false claims, and using AI without understanding its risks. In 2024, the Office of Management and Budget issued AI guidelines for all federal agencies. Later that year, the White House formed an AI Council and the AI and Technology Talent Task Force. Although no federal legislation has been passed, these actions show a growing focus on AI regulation.

    Conclusion 

    California’s Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act aimed to regulate AI development through novel safeguards. While it was applauded by some as a necessary response to an ever-evolving technology, others believed its wide regulations would have stifled innovation and entrepreneurship. As AI’s use and applications continue to evolve, new policy solutions are likely to emerge at both a state and federal level in the future. 

  • Expedited Removal: History, Debate, and Modern Implications

    Expedited Removal: History, Debate, and Modern Implications

    Introduction

    Immediately after his inauguration, President Trump began introducing sweeping changes to U.S. immigration policy. One major change took place on January 21st, 2025, when the Trump administration broadened expedited removal for noncitizens. Expedited removal is a process that allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials to rapidly deport noncitizens who are undocumented or who have committed misrepresentation or fraud. Under expedited removal processes, noncitizens are deported in a single day without an immigration court hearing or other appearance before a judge.

    Prior to Donald Trump’s second term, immigration officers were permitted to utilize the expedited removal process on undocumented immigrants that were captured by officers within 100 miles of U.S borders, as well as those who had resided in the U.S for less than two weeks. However, under the new expanded policy, any undocumented immigrant in the United States who cannot provide proof of their legal presence in the U.S for more than two years will be subject to expedited removal. 

    There are exceptions to expedited removal, including for individuals who express an intention to apply for asylum, fear returning to their country of origin, or fear of torture or prosecution. In such cases, immigration officers will not remove the individual until they are interviewed by an asylum officer. 

    History of Expedited Removal in the U.S.

    Expedited removal has had a long history in the United States. It was first introduced in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This legislation was enacted with the goal of strengthening U.S immigration control policies, and imposed criminal penalties on individuals who utilize false documentation, engage in racketeering, or participate in smuggling. In addition to introducing expedited removal, the Act also mandated a new intervention for those seeking asylum: credible fear interviews. Credible fear interviews are a process whereby a trained asylum officer within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services determines if an individual has a credible fear of persecution or torture if they return to their home country. 

    Originally, the policy of expedited removal was only enforced for noncitizens who arrived in the U.S. via a port of entry. However, in 2002, the policy was expanded to apply to noncitizens who entered by sea without inspection by government officers. It was expanded again two years later to include noncitizens who crossed any land border without inspection, and noncitizens who are found within 100 miles of a U.S. border during the first two weeks of their stay in the U.S. 

    This application of expedited removal remained consistent for over a decade, until President Trump issued an executive order in 2017 that expanded application to all noncitizens in the U.S. and directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to implement new regulations to speed up the removal process. This included conducting credible fear interviews via telephone, which hastened deportations if an asylum seeker’s fears were found incredible. While the Biden administration rescinded this order in 2022, President Trump’s memo to DHS on January 21st reinstated the policies of his first term. 

    Arguments in Favor

    A key argument in favor of expedited removal is that it helps reduce court backlogs. By utilizing expedited removal, fewer immigration cases reach the courts, thereby easing the burden on an overwhelmed immigration court system. At the beginning of 2017, the number of cases pending in U.S. immigration courts was around 534,000, and that number has since increased, reaching 3.6 million cases by the end of 2024. Supporters argue that expedited removal alleviates pressure on immigration courts by streamlining the deportation process. 

    Proponents also argue that expedited removal deters illegal immigration. In 2016, about 267,746 illegal immigrants were apprehended by DHS while trying to cross into the United States, compared to 140,024 in 2017. Supporters attribute this drop to the idea that the quick deportations under Trump’s first-term expedited removal policies discouraged other migrants from attempting to cross the border. 

    Third, advocates highlight the reduction in court costs associated with expedited removal. Because expedited removal bypasses lengthy court proceedings, fewer cases reach immigration courts, resulting in lower expenditures on DHS lawyers, court staff, and detention bed space. As a result, the funds that would be used on these immigration cases can be redirected to other resources and services.

    Arguments against

    One key argument against expedited removal is the matter of family separation. Historically, family unity has been a guiding principle in U.S. immigration policy. Many families in the U.S have mixed legal statuses, meaning some family members may be subject to expedited removal, while others may not. With the current administration’s expansion of expedited removal, family separation is likely to increase, impacting mixed-status families. Opponents argue that this is not only unjust, but also contrary to the principles of the U.S. immigration law. 

    In addition to family separation, critics point to instances where entire families – including vulnerable members such as elderly grandparents and young children – are detained through expedited removal policies. In 2019, 69 mothers detained with their children in South Texas wrote an open letter to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) highlighting the severe physical and psychological effects of detention on their children as they waited for their credible fear interviews. In previous administrations, even infants were subjected to expedited removal along with their mothers who were attempting to seek asylum. 

    Critics of expedited removal also argue that it violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. Under other immigration policies, individuals facing deportation are entitled to a full immigration court hearing. In these hearings, the individual can present evidence, call witnesses, and have legal representation. Afterward, an immigration judge will evaluate the case and may provide an opportunity for appeal. Because expedited removal bypasses formal court proceedings, immigrants facing deportation are not given the opportunity to speak to an attorney or have their case reviewed by a judge. Opponents argue that this increases the risk of mistakenly detaining or deporting individuals who may have legal status.

    Finally, critics argue that the expansion of expedited removal fosters fear and mistrust within immigrant communities. As a result, individuals may be less inclined to seek out assistance or report crimes to authorities due to fear of being detained and deported. 

    Future Prospects

    The debate surrounding expedited removal reflects a broader conversation about immigration reform in the United States. Supporters emphasize the efficiency, cost savings, and deterrent effects of expedited removal, while critics stress the risks of family separation, lack of due process, and increased fear and mistrust within immigrant communities. Given the Trump administration’s recent renewal of its first-term expedited removal policies, it is likely that the number of immigrants deported via expedited removal will increase over the next four years. Immigration policy remains divisive, so it is likely for the Trump administration’s expedited removal policies to face continued debate.

  • The “Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act” of 2024: Key Insights and Implications

    The “Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act” of 2024: Key Insights and Implications

    What are Crisis Pregnancy Centers?

    Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are nonprofit, community-based organizations that aim to ensure pregnant people carry their pregnancy to term. CPCs provide services, including pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, baby formula, and diapers to achieve their mission. While they have operated in the U.S. for decades, CPCs have become more prominent in the public eye in light of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision that overturned the national right to abortion. Contention has emerged concerning whether CPCs should continue to receive federal funding and qualify as eligible healthcare centers for patients using federal healthcare assistance programs. 

    Introduction to the Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act of 2024

    The Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act of 2024 was introduced to the Senate Committee on Finance by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith [R-MS] on January 18, 2024, and is currently in the introduction stage. The Act contains two central provisions:

    1. Maintaining TANF Eligibility: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, is a government program that provides financial assistance to pregnant people and families for the purpose of accessing food, housing, healthcare, and other necessities. States have autonomy in implementing TANF, including determining the type and amount of assistance payments, and the services that can be obtained with TANF funds. The Act would ensure that people who receive TANF can use their benefits to pay for CPC services, and that CPCs can continue to receive TANF-delegated funding from the federal government.
    2. Renewing federal funding: The Act would prevent the federal government from denying CPCs funding via grants, on the basis that doing so merits federal discrimination against grantees. 

    Arguments in Support of the Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act of 2024

    Enhanced Access to Pregnancy Services

    Proponents of the Act argue that PCPs should be praised for the broad range of goods and services they provide at little to no cost, such as baby clothes and formula. Early pregnancy confirmation is cheaper and more accessible at a CPC than at an abortion clinic, which supporters argue increases accessibility. They cite a study that showed that patients without health insurance were significantly more likely to visit a CPC than not to visit a CPC during their pregnancy. Additionally, proponents believe that the educational programs provided by some centers, such as parenting classes and prenatal care, help equip new and expecting parents with necessary knowledge and skills. In addition, some CPCs offer different types of emotional and psychological support. Advocates of the Act believe that the counseling services provided by some centers can help individuals and families navigate the pregnancy experience and its complexities. 

    Protection from Federal Discrimination

    One of the primary objectives of the Act is to ensure that CPCs continue to receive TANF funding. The bill aims to prevent the Biden administration’s proposed rule that would reduce or cut TANF funding to CPCs. Proponents argue that these centers play a crucial role in providing support to pregnant women, and that losing TANF funding eligibility could significantly impact their ability to offer essential services. Advocates of the bill argue that protection against federal discrimination is crucial for maintaining the viability of CPCs and ensuring they can continue to provide their service without undue interference. Advocates emphasize that CPCs have been allowed to receive federal funding since 1996, and that reversing this practice signals federal discrimination on a national scale. Proponents also argue that states should have the flexibility and power to direct funds to organizations that align with their values and priorities, and that the federal government would infringe upon state’s rights by prohibiting funding to CPCs nationally. 

    Arguments Against the Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act of 2024

    Misleading Patients 

    Opponents of the Act argue that CPCs provide misleading or incomplete information about reproduction with the goal of preventing patients from seeking abortion, which can impact patients’ ability to make informed decisions about their health. Most crisis pregnancy centers have a religious affiliation and are not medically licensed, and thus fall outside the scope of consumer protection regulations that are designed to protect patients. Opponents argue that CPCs purposefully and unethically market themselves as health clinics, which has led to the development of websites like ExposeFakeClinics.com and The Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Center Database to warn patients about CPCs in their area. 

    Critics also claim that many ethical concerns that arise when the government provides TANF funding to organizations that are unqualified to provide medical advice. In particular, critics argue that CPCs’ main goal is to discourage or delay women from seeking abortion services, and that providing them with TANF funding could lead patients to perceive them as legitimate and objective healthcare providers. Delays in medical care, whether it be prenatal checkups or appointments about different options, can lead to more complex and costly procedures later on, and potentially put pregnant people’s lives at risk. Critics believe that by prioritizing funding for un-licensed pregnancy centers, the government risks misleading pregnant people into seeking services at centers with no medical credentials and thus neglecting their healthcare needs.

    Misuse of Federal Funds

    Additionally, opponents of the Act are concerned that CPCs lack the oversight and accountability required of other TANF-eligible medical facilities, which could increase the risk of mismanaged or ineffectively-used federal funds. While states must spend TANF funding on programs that achieve one of four TANF purposes, some argue that CPCs are deceptive and lack patient-centered care. Critics of the Act believe that TANF dollars could be used in more efficient ways than funding CPCs, such as promoting job preparation and work. They believe that funding CPCs risks diminishing government funds that could be used to fund prenatal care, contraceptive counseling, and more comprehensive maternal health services. Many believe that allowing TANF funds to support CPCs could weaken the overall monetary support network for reproductive health in the nation. 

    Conclusion

    The Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act of 2024 aims to protect crisis pregnancy centers by allowing states to allocate TANF and other federal grant funds to these centers without federal interference. Supporters argue that CPCs offer vital services that deserve protection and uphold states’ rights to manage their grant distributions. Conversely, opponents express ethical concerns about funding centers that lack medical qualifications, licensure, and oversight. Critics warn that the Act could misallocate federal funds, diverting resources from licensed maternal and contraceptive care programs to less regulated centers. The legislation’s outcome will significantly impact pregnant individuals nationwide.

  • Pros and Cons of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act

    Pros and Cons of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act

    What is the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act?

    The National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2018 mandated the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to coordinate with relevant agencies to study and implement a three-digit dialing code, later designated as 988, for the national mental health crisis hotline. Introduced by Senators Cory Gardner, Tammy Baldwin, Jack Reed, and Jerry Moran, the Act aims to simplify the process of reaching out for help during a crisis, given the rising suicide rates among youth and high-risk groups such as veterans, LGBTQIA+ people, and individuals in rural areas.

    Arguments in Favor of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act

    Improved Accessibility and Crisis Service Coordination

    One of the primary arguments in favor of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act is that it offers better access to mental health support. By designating 9-8-8 as the national suicide prevention hotline number, proponents say the Act simplifies the process of seeking help during a crisis. According to a national report, a three-digit number is easier to remember than the previous ten-digit number, which helps ensure that individuals in distress can quickly access the support they need. Proponents highlight that such an ease of access significantly increases the likelihood of timely assistance, which is crucial in emergency situations where every second counts. Furthermore, using the 988 number for mental health crises directs individuals in distress to appropriate and specialized professional support which they may not otherwise receive from the more general 911 line. Some praise this aspect of the Act for relieving the burden on other emergency medical services, which are often overburdened and under-equipped to respond to mental health crises on top of other emergencies. 

    Follow-Up and Continuous Care

    Supporters also praise the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act’s emphasis on follow-up and continuous care for individuals who contact the 9-8-8 Lifeline. The Act recognizes that immediate crisis intervention is just the first step in preventing suicide and addressing mental health crises. By ensuring systematic follow-up programs, the Lifeline can provide ongoing support to individuals after their initial contact. Follow-up care can include regular check-ins, referrals to local mental health services, and support in navigating the healthcare system, all of which contribute to a comprehensive approach to crisis management and suicide prevention. Proponents hold that this continuous engagement helps to maintain the well-being of individuals, citing a study that suggests follow-up care reduces the risk of future crises and improves overall mental health outcomes. 

    Enhanced Funding and Resource Allocation

    Supporters claim the Act also has the capacity to drive a cultural shift in how mental health crises are perceived and addressed. By equating the importance of mental health emergencies with medical emergencies, proponents argue that the legislation encourages greater recognition and prioritization of mental health issues. This shift has the potential to lead to increased funding and resources for mental health services, ultimately improving the quality and availability of care. Indeed, the Biden-Harris Administration’s investment of nearly $1 billion in the 988 Lifeline, including a sub-network for Spanish speakers, highlights the commitment to expanding and enhancing these critical services.

    Arguments Against the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act

    Uneven State Response

    One significant concern regarding the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act is the uneven state response to the 9-8-8 implementation. Critics highlight that in-state answer rates currently range from 55% to 98%, indicating significant disparities in service quality across the country. States like Alaska, which have the lowest in-state answer rates, often lack local call centers. As a result, residents are redirected to national backup centers that may lack access to or knowledge of local resources for treatment referrals. This variability leads to different levels of accessibility and dependability, which critics claim compromises the overall effectiveness of the 988 hotline and leaves individuals in certain areas without the crucial help they need during crises. Critics warn that the discrepancies in care between states might lead to a general distrust of the hotline.

    Resource and Capacity Constraints

    Critics also argue that the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act was enacted without proper attention to resource allocation and capacity building. They claim that building the infrastructure for a new nationwide crisis hotline is a long-term endeavor, complicated by a national shortage of mental health professionals. Critics point to the development of the 911 system, which took decades to achieve full operational capacity, as a predictor of the difficulties that may be faced with such a quick 9-8-8 rollout. They argue that workforce shortages and infrastructure limitations could delay the system’s full functionality, potentially causing a snowball effect in which crisis centers drop out of the network, rendering care less accessible, reducing the effectiveness and legitimacy of the hotline, and ultimately dissuading people in crisis from calling.

    Low Public Awareness

    Another crucial issue is the low public awareness of the 988 Lifeline and its purpose. Without widespread knowledge and understanding of the service, the number’s reach and impact are significantly reduced. Critics highlight that many Americans, particularly racial minorities and those without a college education, are unaware of the 988 hotline or do not understand how to use it. They argue that the Act should have included more specific programs to increase consumer awareness of the hotline, especially in communities where mental health is a taboo topic. Similar to the rollout of 911, building public awareness will take significant time and effort to ensure that the 988 lifeline is effectively utilized by all segments of the population. Critics of the bill claim this awareness curve could have been mitigated by a more robust public outreach strategy. 

    Conclusion

    The National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act aims to improve access to mental health crisis support by simplifying the process of reaching out for help. Some believe the Act was an urgently needed intervention that provided an adequate basis for the national hotline, while others argue its passage could have been delayed to include more specifics on public awareness and capacity building. While the Act has the capacity to greatly enhance mental health crisis intervention and reduce suicide rates, challenges such as uneven state responses, resource constraints, and low public awareness must be addressed to fully realize its benefits.

  • Protecting Our Democracy Act: Weighing the Pros and Cons

    Protecting Our Democracy Act: Weighing the Pros and Cons

    Background

    The Protecting Our Democracy Act (PODA) is a bill under consideration in Congress that aims to protect the integrity of the democratic process. The bill was originally passed in the House in 2021. It was received in the Senate in late 2021, where it failed to pass due to the use of a filibuster. It was reintroduced to the House in 2023, where it remains.

    PODA’s provisions center around three main goals:

    • Shifting power from the executive to the legislative branch: PODA would limit presidential powers, reassert Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending decisions, and require congressional approval of presidential emergency declarations. PODA would also codify Congress’s subpoena and investigatory power, giving the legislative branch greater oversight of the executive branch.
    • Preventing corruption: PODA would require greater presidential transparency, enact new protections for both inspectors general and whistleblowers, and codify the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses, which prevent government officials from receiving profits from foreign officials or states. It would also reinforce the Hatch Act of 1939, which limits the political activities of federal employees and other government officials involved with federally-funded programs.
    • Strengthening election integrity laws: PODA also prohibits foreign election assistance in the form of donations and would require greater transparency in digital political advertisements.

    Arguments in Favor of the Protecting Our Democracy Act

    One of the main arguments in support of PODA is that gradual institutional decay has undermined congressional authority. PODA’s proponents point to resistance to congressional oversight by former Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama as evidence of this phenomenon. They argue that the recent growth of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch can be mitigated through PODA’s provisions, which give Congress clear authority to enforce subpoenas, reassert congressional power over federal spending, and restrict a president’s use of emergency declarations. Proponents believe that this would effectively reform the balance of power between the two branches and restore the democratic process to the federal government.

    PODA’s supporters also emphasize a need for greater defenses against corruption and abuses of power. They point to the Trump administration’s refusal to disclose tax returns, dismissals of inspectors general, and issuance of pardons for corruption charges against close associates as evidence of the need for greater oversight of the executive branch. They believe that reinforcing the Hatch Act would keep federal programs fair and non-partisan, reduce corruption, and prevent political patronage. Supporters also believe that government whistleblowers need greater protections. A poll conducted by Marist in 2020 found that 86% of American voters agree that there should be more legal protections for federal employees who report fraud. Whistleblower protections are also popular across party lines. Supporters of PODA believe that the bill would provide these popular protections by granting whistleblowers increased anonymity and a private right of action if outed by other government officials.

    Finally, proponents of PODA argue that the bill will prevent foreign interference in elections. The federal ban against foreign interference in national elections has not been updated since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which allowed corporations and other organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns and elections. PODA’s supporters believe that this outdated policy has allowed foreign interests to fund campaigns, pay for digital advertising, and conduct social media campaigns freely, potentially spending almost $1 billion total on U.S. elections in the past decade. If passed, the bill intends to decrease foreign influence by explicitly banning foreign assistance in elections and requiring political groups to report all attempts by foreign actors to influence campaigns or elections.

    Arguments Against the Protecting Our Democracy Act

    The main argument against PODA is that the bill interferes with the separation of power between the three branches of government. Opponents of PODA argue that its provisions diminish the executive branch by requiring congressional oversight of the presidential pardon, a constitutionally-granted presidential power. Critics also believe that PODA would diminish the judicial branch by attaching new definitions to constitutional language that courts have already ruled upon, overriding court decisions and further upsetting the balance of power. Specifically, they point to PODA’s new definition of emoluments, which expands the definition to include payments arising from commercial transactions at fair market value. In light of this, opponents believe that PODA’s passage would upset the American political system of checks and balances by tipping the scales too far in the direction of the legislative branch.

    Opponents of PODA also point to the bill’s protections for whistleblowers and inspectors general as a key reason to oppose the proposal. They believe that the increased protections and anonymity for whistleblowers make it difficult for the federal government to vet claims, shielding poorly-performing employees from scrutiny. They also believe that requiring congressional oversight for firing Inspectors General decreases government efficiency and intrudes on internal operations.

    Critics also believe that PODA is politically-motivated. They argue that the bill specifically targets former President Trump and his administration’s actions. As such, they believe that PODA’s proponents only support it with the intent of politically damaging Trump and that the bill’s provisions are unnecessary.

    Conclusion

    In summary, PODA supporters argue that the bill would restore congressional authority, defend against government corruption and abuses of power, and prevent foreign interference in elections. Critics argue that PODA is a politically-motivated bill that would interfere with the constitutional separation of powers, make it difficult to vet whistleblower claims, and decrease the efficiency of the federal government. 
    After its introduction to the Senate in December 2021, PODA entered committee, where it has remained for the last three years. Even with its recent reintroduction to the House, it is unlikely to pass the Senate in its entirety unless the filibuster is abolished.