Commentary #2

My interest was immediately piqued with your topic of safe injection sites for drug users. Being a social work student, this is a topic that my classes have explored on a few occasions. Of course, it is very controversial and it’s easy to understand why. There are so many facets to the drug use community and each person is different and has their own story. This makes it difficult to have a “one size fits all” approach when it comes to intervention and ultimately trying to help people recover from their drug addiction. We can open as many rehab centers as we like. We can make them as cost-effective (free) as possible. But at the end of the day, rehab centers only help those who are ready to make a change. There is nothing anyone else can do to help someone else reach that point. I notice that you mentioned this as well. However, you also made a comment asking whether the dangers of using on the streets should encourage people to want to get out of that situation. From my understanding, those who suffer from addiction have a battle between risk and reward. In this case, the drugs being the reward. There are multiple studies that also prove drug use, especially repeated drug use, changes the brain and brain chemistry. This can have a severe impact on prioritizing what is important and relevant and what is not. For someone who uses drugs, the reward far outweighs the risk, and in some cases, they don’t recognize the risk at all. Therefore, desire to get out this situation does not register in the same way it would for someone who is sober.

People who use drugs are also at an increased risk of contracting disease and illness. HIV and Hepatitis being two very prevalent and very preventable diseases within the community. Safe injection sites often, as you said, protect from harmful individuals on the streets. However, they also typically provide new needles and proper disposal devices. People who are addicted to drugs will often use any needle available, whether it has been used or not. This spreads disease like wildfire, as we can already assume. Additionally, because there are trained “employees” present, they can also monitor for signs of overdose and get individuals help should such a situation arise. I use quotations because many injection sites are staffed with volunteers and non-profit organizations which negates some of your concern for tax dollars going towards these facilities. If we would like these individuals to have an opportunity to go to a rehab center and recover, we need to make sure they don’t die before they have a chance.

Lastly, I agree that things like reduced education costs and feeding the hungry along with so many other problems in the world, or even just in America, have a need for attention and funds and reform. However, paying attention and aiding one cause does not mean we need to take away from another cause. We can reduce education costs AND help protect the community that uses drugs. Fix healthcare AND prevent disease outbreak among addiction sufferers. There is enough wealth in the world to fix more than one or two causes, we just need those in control of the money to care enough to apply it.

The jury is still out on long-term results of safe injection sites, but I think they are worth a shot. Short-term results are looking pretty promising.

Are Babies Getting the Short End of the Stick?

In 2015, just under 4 million babies were born. A number that has been on the decline since 2007. People are having fewer babies, if they choose to have babies at all, and are waiting longer to have babies than in the past. There are several reported reasons for the decrease and the delay, but a big one is the cost to have a baby. Medical bills pile up before the baby is even born and peak at their birth. Babies need so much, for lack of a better word, stuff! Did we mention how expensive daycare is? A huge contribution to the money stress is that most pregnant people are not likely to receive paid maternity leave after their baby is born. Even unpaid maternity leave is a stretch. Many women are forced to leave their brand-new baby after only six weeks, if they get to wait that long, to head back to work and make money. The knowledge that they have been missing out on half the household income, or in some cases the entire income, since the baby has been born can be a huge stressor on a family.

Around 60% of companies offer maternity leave of up to 12 weeks. Only 33% of companies offer more than 12 weeks. A study in 2016 surveyed companies and it showed that only 12% of those companies offer fully paid leave. Because of the unreliability of maternity leave straight from the employer, many people rely on FMLA or the Family and Medical Leave Act which is enacted at the federal level. This basically ensures the employee's job will still be there for them for up to 12 weeks on leave without penalty. However, this does not mean the employee will receive pay while on leave and the employee/company must meet certain requirements to even qualify.

When we bring other countries into the equation, we quickly see how our leave benefits are truly poor. Eastern Europe is excellent at providing maternity leave. Ranked #1 is Bulgaria with 59 weeks of paid leave. Tied for tenth are Estonia and Poland with 20 weeks of paid leave. If those countries are too far for you to care what they offer, let’s consider Canada. Canada offers up to a year of leave with at least partial pay.

Maybe you’re wondering what, if any, benefits there are to parents having paid leave to be home with their baby. Studies show that paid maternity leave results in a lower infant mortality rate, increases likelihood babies will meet their vaccination schedule, makes breastfeeding easier which increases overall health for baby, and even makes kids less likely to drop out of school in the future. Benefits for parents? Women have lower rates of post-partum depression, as well as decreased rates of depression in later years, and increases family bonding. As for companies, paid leave increases employee retention, and good employees at that. Companies that offer leave policies have happier workers which equal more productive workers. Studies have even shown that paid leave reduces the likelihood a family will need government assistance and helps women stay in the workforce.

Overall, paid maternity leave is beneficial for everyone involved and makes for a happier future. Parents deserve to be home with their babies without the stress of money. Babies deserve to spend at least some of their first year of life with their parents. The benefits are wide and lasting and it’s something the government ought to dedicate some reform towards.

Commentary

For my commentary stage, I have chosen to review this blog post.

I found your blog five to be very informative. Being a woman as well, I was aware of the price increase on certain products just because they are being marketed towards women. However, I was not aware there was an actual term for it. Women in my life, including myself, often have the conversation about how retail gouges women for their money by doing things like making clothing thinner and lighter than men’s so we have to buy layers, or making pants with small or sometimes no pockets so we have to buy purses and bags. The “luxury tax” on menstrual products has always been appalling and laughable.

I would disagree with your opening sentence stating, “this issue is not the most significant controversy…” As you went on to say, it “affects all women every day.” Women make up 50%+ of the population. This is simply indicative of all the ways women are treated unfairly and disadvantaged by our patriarchal society. There will always be other significant controversies but that doesn’t have to diminish this one.

I loved that you took this opportunity to also point out the pay gap between genders. It truly doesn’t make sense that we should have to pay higher prices on top of needing more products simply because of gender. As well, I appreciated that you offered solutions to this problem and pointed out that we shouldn’t necessarily give in and start buying the less expensive men’s option. Additionally, it was nice to see that you included the struggles of women in third world countries regarding access to menstrual hygiene products.

The only other comments I would offer is that I would consider giving your blog post a title besides “Blog Five”. It would have been helpful to have an idea of what the blog post was going to be about. I almost didn’t click on it for this reason but I’m glad I did. I might also suggest some links or in-text citation regarding where you got some of the statistics and information from. From a reader’s point of view, it would have been cool to click on “#Axthepinktax” and be taken to the calculator you mentioned.

All in all, I enjoyed your post. It was informative and relevant. It was also to the point but with plenty of information to back up what you were saying and point readers in the right direction if they wanted to investigate this topic themselves.

The US in Uterus Doesn't Include Politicians

Why should birth control be free? I think the better question is why shouldn’t birth control be free? Come on, America. We can’t have it both ways. There are Americans that don’t want their taxes to pay for other people’s babies through state or government funding and at the same time they don’t support abortions or places that provide abortions. The foster system is deeply flawed and is already home to way too many children who are also lacking proper care, love, and safety. We already know that abstinence-based sex education is a dud. So why do we refuse to help women of all ages protect themselves from unwanted and/or unplanned pregnancy?

Let’s look at the facts.

First, condoms are 98%* effective at preventing pregnancy.

Did you notice the asterisk? Because I did. 

*when used perfectly every time you have sex.

Yikes! So, what if people don’t use them perfectly every single time they have sex? (Which let’s be honest. Most people make mistakes and accidents happen and we probably shouldn’t assume we’re perfect.) Well, that number drops to 85% (1). For many people, that 85% is not enough. That means there’s a 15% chance of pregnancy despite having used protection.

Many birth control options are highly effective and there are quite a few to choose from. Let’s take the IUD for example. Alone, the IUD is 99% effective. Imagine combining that with a condom! Of course, no method is 100% but the higher the percent, the better. (And we do want to be sure we’re using condoms for back up pregnancy protection as well as because they are the only way to protect against STIs!)

Now, think about this. Women from low-income families have a disproportionately more difficult time with access to healthcare and birth control. Low-income women are also more likely to have more children than middle- or upper-class families (2). Low-income families are more likely to need government assistance to survive. But there have also been studies that show accessible healthcare and birth control reduces the rate of unplanned pregnancy as well as abortion (3).

Let’s also consider that according to bedsider.org Medicaid covers around 41% of births costing around $10,000 minimum for a complication free, natural delivery. Medicaid can cover birth control for one person for one year at the price of around $250.

Free birth control = less unplanned pregnancy, less abortion, less assistance, less stress.

You do the math.

To Beto Or Not To Beto

With presidential candidates announcing themselves left and right, I bring to you another opinion article on a different candidate. “A Bad Day for Beto” was written by Josh Marshall and posted on talkingpointsmemo.com. Josh Marshall is the founder and editor of Talking Points Memo which has been active since 2000. The New York Times Magazine regarded Marshall’s blog as "one of the most popular and most respected sites." In this article, Marshall writes to anyone interested in the upcoming political campaigns, maybe more specifically those who will be eligible voters at the time of our next presidential election.

Beto O’Rourke announced his presidential candidacy on Thursday, March 14, 2019, and received several endorsements. According to Marshall, these endorsements are from Representative Kathleen Rice, Rep. Stephanie Murphy, Rep. Veronica Escobar, and Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney. Also, according to Marshall, these endorsements are coming from people who are Democratic centrists. A Democratic centrist being someone who is more moderate than liberal within the Democrat party. Marshall seems to think that those hoping for this type of president run few and far between and Beto allowing himself to be painted in this sort of light will lead to his loss. He believes a successful Dem candidate will appeal to the left while not allowing themselves to be controlled by the left. Beto coming across as a centrist candidate will certainly not win over any Bernie voters.

What I find interesting is the comparison between Josh Marshall’s point of view and the point of view of Matt Welch who wrote “Bernie Sanders already moved Democrats to the left. Why is he running again?” which I discussed in my last post. Welch took the stance that Bernie was too liberal, too progressive to gain any follow-through that would secure him the presidency. Here, Marshall is saying Beto is too ‘center-of-the-road’ to make Democrat voters want him in office. In my opinion, it might be too early to tell which type of candidate will succeed in bringing out supporters and voters to help give the Democratic party a win. And let’s not forget that there are other candidates who have announced and possibly more to come. I will say that I agree with Marshall more than I agree with Welch. I can see voters saying Beto isn’t enough, despite the support he seemed to garner during his run for Senate, though he lost. Voters want to be inspired and want to see change. Can Beto promise that while enjoying the comfort of the middle?

Op-Ed Rundown - Do you feel the Bern?

Matt Welch is the author of an article on the Los Angeles Times entitled “Bernie Sanders already moved Democrats to the left. Why is he running again?” published on February 20, 2019. Matt Welch is a self-proclaimed independent who is editor at large for Reason, a libertarian magazine and previously served as editor in chief from 2008-2016. Welch has covered many political topics and even references previous articles he’s written in this article.  I say all this to say, who is Welch writing to in this case? I believe he is directing his commentary towards the Democratic party; perhaps those who might be rooting for Bernie, excited to see him take another shot at the presidency. Or perhaps he’s simply writing to those who are also asking, “Why is he running again?”

Seeing that Welch is an independent, I wasn’t surprised to read that there are some Bernie policies he supports, and some that he disapproves. Welch feels that Bernie got to where he did in the previous presidential race due to the fact that he was more genuine than Hillary Clinton. He states that most Democrats didn’t, and still don’t, truly agree with Bernie’s proclamations for free education, single-payer health care, a higher minimum wage, etc. But because Clinton was more calculated with her approach, Democrats were flocking to the option that seemed more authentic. Bernie truly believes in his platform and Democrats were starving for that sort of passion.

Welch claims that Americans feel the policies Bernie advocates for are not cost effective. He points out that Vermont passed single-payer healthcare and then promptly did away with it due to cost. He also points out that Maryland tried the “Millionaire Tax” which proved ineffective because those millionaires would simply move away. Welch paints doubt in the hope that Bernie could win the election and succeed in delivering on his hopes and dreams for America. This can reasonably cast uncertainty into the minds of some supporters.

Matt goes on to say that Bernie’s platform has inspired enough Democrats that small positive changes can be seen already and that should be a win in Bernie’s book. He says that progressive Democrats will not see the success that more moderate Democrats can achieve. I’ve seen this argument before. “Slow and steady wins the race,” the idea that you can get farther with small compromises rather than large and rapid reform. And this may be true. But I have also heard the argument that our current system doesn’t need small fixer-uppers here and there, we need massive reform to see true, long-lasting change. And change is what we need because what we have going on now clearly isn’t working.

I don’t know if Mr. Welch’s opinion could sway anyone to look at Bernie’s presidential race any differently. From what I know of Bernie fans, they “Bern” hard for him. Many millennials already lean to the left and would love nothing more than to achieve the things on Bernie’s platform. If nothing else, we love a candidate who cares about the things that we care about and is fighting to make sure that more than the rich and white thrive while living in America. That’s something worth voting for in my book. For those against Bernie, all this did is reaffirm their reasons for voting against him because Welch certainly didn't pose him in a positive light overall.

Oh, The Lengths He'll Go

The border wall between the United States and Mexico has been a hot topic ever since Donald Trump began as a mere presidential candidate. Now that Trump is the President and has been in office for two years, talk of the potential wall has not died down in any way. In fact, it’s an even hotter topic as we recently experienced the longest government shutdown to date due to debates over the wall. Most recently, Trump has plans to declare a state of emergency in an attempt to receive desired funds for wall construction from Congress.

BBC has written a succinct article describing possible reasons why Trump would take the route of declaring a national emergency. Possibilities are explained such as Trump being able to access funds approved for other uses and skip typical political procedures. “How emergency powers could be used to build Trump's wall” by BBC is an excellent way to get an idea of what this situation means and in what ways if any, it could truly benefit Trump’s effort to secure funds towards his wall. This article is a great read for those looking for a summarized explanation as to what is going on regarding this debate and what potential outcomes lie ahead.