ACE

Tag: Regulation

  • 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.

  • Journalist Accidentally Added to Military Planning Chat: What You Need to Know

    Journalist Accidentally Added to Military Planning Chat: What You Need to Know

    On March 13, The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat that included senior Trump administration officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The group chat—titled “Houthi PC small group”—contained sensitive information about U.S. military operations. Two days after Goldberg was added to the chat, Hegseth sent details about upcoming airstrikes on Yemen, including specifics about weapon type, timing, and human targets. About two hours after Hegseth’s chat, the first of the air strikes began to fall on Yemen, killing at least 53 people. 

    After the strikes were confirmed, Goldberg determined that the group chat was legitimate. He subsequently left the chat due to concern about the highly classified nature of the information being shared. Goldberg noted that the members of the group chat did not seem to notice that he had been added to the group chat or that he had left, despite the group’s creator being notified of Goldberg’s departure.

    Concerns and Controversy

    The existence of the group chat has raised concerns regarding national security and potential violations of federal law. National security and legal experts say that Michael Waltz, Trump’s national security advisor, may have breached the Espionage Act by creating the Signal group chat and communicating classified war planning information. The Espionage Act prohibits unauthorized access to or distribution of sensitive national defense information.

    While Signal is commonly used by government officials for logistical coordination, it is generally not employed for classified military communications. Instead, the federal government maintains secure communication channels specifically for such discussions. Experts warn that classified messages on Signal could be vulnerable to leaks in the event of a cybersecurity breach or the theft of an official’s device.

    ​​Beyond security risks, the use of disappearing messages in discussions of official acts raises concerns about compliance with federal records retention laws. Under these laws, official communications related to government actions must be preserved as part of the public record. Some messages in the Signal chat, however, were reportedly set to be automatically deleted after a few weeks.

    Trump Administration Response 

    The Trump administration has denied that the group chat contained classified information or “war plans.” White House Press Secretary Katherine Levitt dismissed Goldberg’s report as a “hoax written by a Trump-hater.” When asked about the leak on March 24, President Trump denied knowledge of the situation and downplayed the controversy, stating that The Atlantic was “not much of a magazine.”

    Officials in the administration have continued to assert that the group chat did not involve sensitive military details. Hegseth maintained that “nobody was texting war plans,” while Waltz took responsibility for accidentally adding Goldberg to the group chat, stating that the journalist’s number was listed under someone else’s name.

    Full Transcript Released

    In response to the Trump administration’s denial, The Atlantic published the full transcript of Hegseth’s attack plans on Yemen. These texts include information such as the types of aircraft being used in the strike and the timing of the strikes. In response to the release of the full transcript, the Trump administration and senior officials such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio have maintained that no classified information was leaked, nor would the leaked information have “put in danger anyone’s life or the mission.”

  • 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. 

  • Tulsi Gabbard Confirmed as Director of National Intelligence: Can She Keep America Safe?

    Tulsi Gabbard Confirmed as Director of National Intelligence: Can She Keep America Safe?

    In another significant development in Washington, Tulsi Gabbard—once a Democratic congresswoman, later an outspoken critic of her party, and now a key ally of President Donald Trump—has been confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

    Gabbard’s political journey has been anything but conventional. Born in American Samoa and raised in Hawaii, she became the youngest person elected to the Hawaii state legislature at 21. After serving in the Hawaii National Guard and deploying to Iraq, she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2012, becoming the first American Samoan and Hindu member of Congress.

    Her tenure in Congress was marked by independent positions on foreign policy, including a 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which drew bipartisan criticism. In 2022, she announced her departure from the Democratic Party, claiming it was under the control of an “elitist cabal of warmongers.” 

    A Contentious Confirmation Process

    During her confirmation hearings, Gabbard faced intense scrutiny over her past statements and actions. Senators questioned her previous defense of Edward Snowden, whom she had once called a “brave whistleblower.” When pressed to label Snowden a traitor, she responded: “Edward Snowden broke the law.” 

    Snowden, a former NSA contractor, leaked classified information in 2013 about the U.S. government’s mass surveillance programs, including the bulk collection of American phone records under the Patriot Act. His revelations exposed the extent of the NSA’s global surveillance operations and sparked a worldwide debate on privacy, national security, and government overreach. While some view Snowden as a whistleblower who revealed unconstitutional surveillance, others, including U.S. officials, see him as a criminal who endangered national security.

    Gabbard had previously argued that Snowden deserved a fair trial rather than immediate prosecution under the Espionage Act, which does not allow whistleblowers to defend their actions in court. However, her confirmation hearing remarks signaled a shift, suggesting she would take a harder stance on intelligence leaks now that she leads the nation’s intelligence apparatus.

    Reversal on Surveillance Policies

    During her confirmation hearings, Tulsi Gabbard faced intense scrutiny over her past statements and actions. Senators questioned her previous defense of Edward Snowden, whom she had once praised for exposing illegal government activities. When pressed to label Snowden a traitor, she acknowledged that he broke the law but refrained from using the term “traitor.” 

    Regarding government surveillance, Gabbard had been a vocal critic of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), expressing concerns that citizens’ communications could be incidentally collected when targeting foreign nationals. 

    However, during the hearings, she indicated a shift in her stance, suggesting that with appropriate reforms, Section 702 could be a valuable tool for national security. This change led some Democrats to accuse her of political opportunism, while Republicans viewed it as a necessary evolution given her prospective role.

    Despite strong Democratic opposition, Gabbard’s nomination was confirmed by the Senate with a vote largely along party lines. 

    As Director of National Intelligence, Gabbard now oversees all 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, NSA, and FBI. Her appointment raises pressing questions about the future of U.S. intelligence policy. Will she uphold her past calls for transparency and civil liberties protections, or will she adopt a more traditional intelligence posture now that she’s at the helm?

    With rising global threats, cybersecurity challenges, and intense domestic political divisions, Tulsi Gabbard faces an uphill battle. The question is no longer whether she could get here. It’s whether she can succeed.

  • Trump’s Tariffs: Key Updates and Ongoing Debate

    Trump’s Tariffs: Key Updates and Ongoing Debate

    One of President Trump’s myriad “first-day” promises, the plan to leverage tariffs against Canada, Mexico, and China drew attention on the campaign trail. Two weeks into his second term, the campaign promise came to fruition via three consecutive executive orders, sparking economic debate and what some are calling a trade war with neighboring countries. 

    The Executive Orders

    On February first, the White House released an emergency memo announcing new tariffs as a means to combat “the extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs”. The declaration alluded to executive orders from the same day which invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China. Collectively, these orders levied 25% tariffs on all goods from Canada and Mexico and a 10% tariff on all goods from China. The first order carves out a smaller 10% tariff on energy resources imported from Canada to limit domestic energy shortages.

    Diplomatic Standoff and Temporary Delay

    Just before the tariffs were set to take effect, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau negotiated a 30-day delay, agreeing to several conditions. The 30-day window sets a tight deadline for implementing the following measures, with the potential for future U.S. tariffs lingering in the case of failed implementation:

    Canada:

    • Appointing a Fentanyl Czar: Canada will designate a high-level official responsible for coordinating efforts to combat fentanyl production and distribution.
    • Designation of Drug Cartels as Terrorist Organizations: This move aims to enhance legal frameworks for tackling organized crime.
    • Intelligence Sharing and Funding: Canada will implement an intelligence directive targeting fentanyl and organized crime, supported by substantial funding.
    • Border Security Enhancements: Canada has pledged to bolster its border security measures to prevent illegal crossings and drug smuggling.

    Mexico:

    • Deployment of National Guard: Mexico will send 10,000 National Guard troops to its northern border to prevent drug trafficking and illegal immigration.
    • Cooperation on Weapons Trafficking: Mexico will work jointly with the U.S. to curb the trafficking of weapons into Mexico.

    China did not negotiate a delay, and instead retaliated immediately with its own tariffs on American energy and agricultural imports. China also filed an official dispute in the World Trade Organization.

    During negotiations for the 30-day-delay, Canada also retaliated with its own tariffs on U.S. goods. On February 4th, Prime Minister Trudeau implemented a CA$155 billion tariff package that will impact myriad products including steel and plastic, household appliances, and coffee. Mexico has not yet proposed retaliatory tariffs. 

    Prospective Impacts

    The Trump administration’s use of tariffs is not new; in his first term, President Trump levied considerable tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, impacting China, India, the European Union, and other trade partners. However, President Trump’s recent executive orders have drawn increased attention for their novel scope. This is the first time in American history that a sitting President has invoked IEEPA to leverage tariffs, bypassing the formal investigation process required under other tariff-related laws like Section 232. Supporters emphasize that the use of IEEPA allows President Trump to act more efficiently in light of the pressing opioid crisis, while critics warn that using IEEPA to implement tariffs risks unchecked executive authority. 

    Economically, some experts warn that this round of tariffs could raise consumer prices significantly more than the tariffs from the last Trump administration due to their expanded scope, targeting of consumer goods, and ongoing inflation. A report from the Tax Foundation estimates that tariffs will function as a hidden tax, potentially costing households hundreds of dollars annually. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the tariffs “the beginning of a golden age of higher costs for American families”, warning that they would strain relations with allies and worsen supply chain issues. On the other hand, some argue that Trump’s tariff strategy has already succeeded in forcing Canada and Mexico to the negotiating table, leading to unprecedented commitments to address border security and the drug trade. They emphasize that the proposed tariffs were a strategic move to force cooperation from neighboring countries on pressing issues, despite the short-term economic cost. 

    Will the Tariffs Actually Be Imposed?

    While the 30-day delay provides an opportunity for Canada and Mexico to fulfill their commitments, President Trump has stated that he fully intends to impose tariffs if they fail to act decisively. Moreover, on February 13th, President Trump signed a memo calling for research on retaliatory tariffs, signaling that the White House is preparing to impose additional tariffs on nations like Canada and China that initially retaliated with tariffs of their own.

  • 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.

  • Understanding the AI in Healthcare Debate

    Understanding the AI in Healthcare Debate

    Background

    What is Artificial Intelligence?

    Artificial intelligence, more commonly referred to as AI, encompasses many technologies that enable computers to simulate human intelligence and problem solving abilities. AI includes machine learning, which allows computers to imitate human learning, and deep learning, a subset of machine learning that simulates the decision making processes of the human brain. Together, these algorithms power most of the AI in our daily lives, such as Chat GPT, self-driving vehicles, GPS, and more. 

    Introduction

    Due to the rapid and successful development of AI technology, its use is growing across many sectors including healthcare. According to a recent Morgan Stanley report, 94 percent of surveyed healthcare companies use AI in some capacity. In addition, a MarketsandMarkets study valued the global AI healthcare market at $20.9 billion for 2024 and predicted the value to surpass $148 billion by 2029. The high projected value of AI can be attributed to the increasing use of AI across hospitals, medical research, and medical companies. Hospitals currently use AI to predict disease risk in patients, summarize symptoms for potential diagnoses, power chatbots, and streamline patient check-ins. 

    The increased use of AI in healthcare and other sectors has prompted policymakers to recommend global standards for AI implementation. UNESCO published the first global standards for AI ethics in November 2021, and the Biden-Harris Administration announced an executive order in October 2023 on safe AI use and development. Following these recommendations, the Department of Health and Human Services published a regulation titled HTI-1 Final Rule, which includes requirements, standards, and certifications for AI use in healthcare settings. The FDA also expanded its inspection of medical devices that incorporate AI in 2023, approving 692 AI devices. While the current applications of AI in the health industry seem promising, the debate over the extent of its use remains a contentious topic for patients and providers.

    Arguments in Favor of AI In Healthcare

    Those in favor of AI in healthcare cite its usefulness in diagnosing patients and streamlining patient interactions with the healthcare system. They point to evidence showing that AI is valuable for identifying patterns in complex health data to profile diseases. In a study evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of AI in primary care for over 100,000 patients, researchers found an overall 84.2 percent agreement rate between the physician and the AI diagnosis. 

    In addition, proponents argue that AI will reduce the work burden on physicians and administrators. According to a survey by the American Medical Association, two thirds of over 1,000 physicians surveyed identified advantages to using AI such as reductions in documentation time. Moreover, a study published in Health Informatics found that using AI to generate draft replies to patient messages reduced burnout and burden scores for physicians. Supporters claim that AI can improve the patient experience as well, reducing waiting times for appointments and assisting in appointment scheduling.

    Proponents also argue that using AI could significantly combat mounting medical and health insurance costs. According to a 2024 poll, around half of surveyed U.S. adults said they struggled to afford healthcare, and one in four said they put off necessary care due to the cost. Supporters hold that AI may be a solution, citing one study that found that AI’s efficiency in diagnosis and treatment lowered healthcare costs compared to traditional methods. Moreover, researchers estimate that the expansion of AI in healthcare could lead to savings of up to $360 billion in domestic healthcare spending. For example, AI could be used to save $150 billion annually by automating about 45 percent of administrative tasks and $200 billion in insurance payouts by detecting fraud. 

    Arguments Against AI in Healthcare

    Opponents caution against scaling up AI’s role in healthcare because of the risks associated with algorithmic bias and data privacy. Algorithmic bias, or discriminatory practices taken up by AI from unrepresentative data, is a well-known flaw that critics say is too risky to integrate into already-inequitable healthcare settings. For example, when trained with existing healthcare data such as medical records, AI algorithms tended to incorrectly evaluate health needs and disease risks in Black patients compared to White patients. One study argues that this bias in AI medical applications will worsen existing health inequities by underestimating care needs in populations of color. For example, the study found that an AI system designed to predict breast cancer risk may incorrectly assign Black patients as “low risk”. Since clinical trial data in the U.S. still severely underrepresents people of color, critics argue that algorithmic bias will remain a dangerous feature of healthcare AI systems in the future.

    Those against AI use in healthcare also cite concerns with data privacy and consumer trust. They highlight that as AI use expands, more corporations, clinics, and public bodies will have access to medical records. One review explained that recent partnerships between healthcare settings and private AI corporations has resulted in concerns about the control and use of patient data. Moreover, opponents argue that the general public is significantly less likely to trust private tech companies with their health data than physicians, which may lead to distrust of healthcare settings that partner with tech companies to integrate AI. Another issue critics emphasize is the risk of data breaches. Even when patient data is anonymized, new algorithms are capable of re-identifying patients. If data security is left to private AI companies that may not have experience protecting such large quantities of patient data against sophisticated attacks, opponents claim the risk of large-scale data leaks may increase. 

    Conclusion

    The rise of AI in healthcare has prompted debates on diverse topics ranging from healthcare costs to work burden to data privacy. Proponents highlight AI’s potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy, reduce administrative burdens on healthcare professionals, and lower costs. Conversely, opponents express concerns about algorithmic bias exacerbating health disparities and data breaches leaking patient information. As the debate continues, the future of AI in healthcare will hinge on addressing these diverse perspectives and ensuring that the technology is developed responsibly.