Author: Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

Illinois Faces Federal Defunding Over The State Law Requiring Abortion Referrals

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

On January 21, 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), issued a Notice of Violation to the State of Illinois. This notice alleged that the 2016 Amendment of the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act (HCRCA) violates the Weldon and Coats-Snowe Amendments as they relate to abortion. 

The current administration is threatening to withhold up to $20 billion in federal funding if Illinois does not provide assurances that it will comply with the instructions. 

The 2016 Amendment was codified in the Illinois State Constitution to ensure that patients receive information on where they can receive medical care “when a provider or health care institution has a religious or conscience objection to a particular course of treatment.” In simple terms, this means that even if a provider personally objects to a certain type of care, patients still have the right to know where they can go to receive that care.

The amendment has been falsely portrayed as forcing anti-abortion providers to make referrals in order to receive legal protections, effectively requiring them to take part in procedures they oppose.

The 2016 Amendment was intended to reflect a common sense principle that while some healthcare providers may have personal objections, patients still deserve accurate information and timely access to medical services. Nevertheless, Illinois affirms that healthcare should conform to a patient-centered approach that keeps patients informed of their ability to meet health needs, and that this should not be overlooked because of personal beliefs. 

However, the current administration has instead pushed federal agencies to roll back Biden-era policies that supported access to reproductive healthcare, claiming, without evidence, that federal funding was being used to promote abortion after the overturning of Roe. 

Colleen K. Connell, the Executive Director of the ACLU of Illinois, called HHS’s actions “blackmail.” Connell warned that these actions will only continue to endanger “the health and well-being of millions of Illinois residents.”

While HHS claims to be protecting human rights and liberties, it is worth asking whose rights are actually being defended. Patients should never lose access to life-saving care because of their providers’ religious or political beliefs. Abortion is healthcare, and it should be treated as such. It is time for HHS to acknowledge this fundamental truth.

With LA Maternity Wards Closing at Alarming Rates, Patients Are Giving Birth in ERs

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

Los Angeles County has seen five maternity wards close since 2023, bringing the total number of closures to 16 over the past decade. As a result, hospitals across the county are struggling to meet the needs of pregnant patients.

Los Angeles General Medical Center, a teaching hospital, has treated approximately1,400 pregnant patients who arrived through its emergency room seeking care during labor and delivery between 2016 and 2023. A former resident explained that “we don’t have the ability to turn away patients” especially as maternity ward closures force people to travel longer distances for care. Approximately 65% of those affected in Los Angeles County are Latina women.

Dr. Sigita Cahoon, vice chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Los Angeles General Medical Center is one of the many providers who have been on the frontlines of this growing crisis. Dr. Cahoon shared that her hospital has seen a rise in pregnant patients diagnosed with serious conditions, including high blood pressure, seizure disorders, psychiatric needs, and placenta accreta. If left untreated, these complications can pose life-threatening risks to both the pregnant person and their unborn children. 

At the same time, Los Angeles County’s maternal morbidity rate continues to rise. Because not all hospital staff and facilities are equipped to manage labor and delivery, those that are face overwhelming pressure. This strain can impact clinical judgment during high-risk procedures, increasing the likelihood of complications. These challenges are not unique to Los Angeles, as communities across the country face similar consequences from maternity ward closures.

Nationwide, 35% of counties are now considered “maternity care deserts.” In these areas, 2.3 million women and about 150,000 births were affected in 2022 alone. While people in most urban areas can receive services within 20 minutes, for many in rural America, it can take more than 50 minutes. Fewer than 41% of rural hospitals provide labour and delivery services, and in 12 states, fewer than one third do. Postnatal care has also been severely impacted, with continued closures limiting access even further. 

Although maternity care deserts exist across the country, the rural South has been hit especially hard. Limited access in this region has significantly contributed to the national increase in preventable pregnancy-related deaths. Southern states like Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and Georgia account for the majority of states with the worst access to care. 

In Alabama, there are 27.5 maternal care providers per 100,000 residents, compared with 67.1 in New Hampshire. Many of these states also enforce strict abortion bans, creating what advocates describe as “double deserts.” Women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies while lacking access to proper prenatal, labor, and postnatal care, often resulting in higher rates of preterm birth and medical complications. 

At the same time, hospitals are struggling with inadequate Medicaid reimbursement. Medicaid covers about 41% of all births nationwide, yet low reimbursement rates strain hospital budgets and limit access to services, including neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). This funding gap has further deepened inequities in maternal care. The government’s failure to address these systemic issues reflects a troubling lack of political will.

At a time when people are being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies and access to labor, delivery, and postnatal care is rapidly shrinking, meaningful government intervention is urgently needed. Instead, policymakers continue to fall short of their responsibility to protect public health. It is time for government leaders to take accountability and invest in equitable, accessible maternal healthcare. Everyone deserves safe and timely care, and it is the government’s duty to ensure that no one is left behind.

Investors’ Undervaluation of Women’s Health Mirrors America’s Devaluation of Women’s Bodies

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

For decades, women’s healthcare has been narrowly framed around reproduction and fertility, despite the reality that women’s health extends far beyond these boundaries. At the same time, women are expected to drive the economy, working, caregiving, and managing the health of their families, while the healthcare system continues to undervalue their needs.

Until 1985, women’s healthcare largely neglected the rest of the body, often dismissed as irrelevant to fertility. As a result, countless medical realities affecting women across their lifetimes went unreported and unanalyzed. It was not until the 1990s that women were required to participate in federal clinical trials, meaning that the medical field still lacks adequate knowledge about how many drugs and devices affect women differently than men. Thus, it is unsurprising that healthcare market investors have also continued to undervalue women’s health. 

Women, alone, account for approximately 80% of health care decisions for their families, use medical services more frequently, and spend more out-of-pocket for medical care. Although the U.S. Public Health Service Task Force on Women’s Health Issues reported that women are more susceptible to certain diseases than men in many instances, the Task Force makes clear that it is even more imperative to have legislation, dialogue, and policies that work to educate and expand access to care. Unfortunately, women are more likely to die from cancer, suffer from menstrual disorders, are more susceptible to urinary tract infections, and die from diabetes, to name a few. Still, the discovery of this data has largely occurred in recent decades. Other significant barriers to accessing health care and to inclusion in health research are racial and systemic in nature. These groups are at higher risk of underlying health complications, especially with age.

Due to the lack of research, exclusion of women from clinical trials, and recent policy shifts, such as the overturning of Roe, the absence of consistent reproductive care legislation across states, and cuts to Medicare, women face significant barriers to care. These policies have created maternal care deserts, resulting from many closures of essential departments, such as OBGYN wards. Despite women being the largest consumers of healthcare, the healthcare that is predominantly necessary for their care continued to be defunded and disinvested in.

Nevertheless, as the Trump Administration and several agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have reduced support for women’s health programs, departments, and research projects, this has only further underscored the underinvestment in women’s healthcare. Major cuts to Medicaid programs and the dismantling of the Affordable Care Act have substantially reduced access to affordable coverage and care, especially for low-income women and families, leading to a “steep rise” in people becoming uninsured and reduced state healthcare funding for providers, resulting in many closures of essential departments, such as OBGYN wards. 

Ultimately, the devaluation of women’s healthcare by investors reflects a deeper, systemic failure to prioritize women’s needs within the healthcare system. If government leaders demonstrated a genuine commitment to women’s health, investors would likely follow, expanding funding for care, research, and innovation. Instead, the lack of political will has reinforced disinvestment, even as women remain the largest consumer base in healthcare.

Black History Month Celebrates 100th Anniversary

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

Black History is world history. Although it is the shortest month, February is recognized in the United States as Black History Month to honor and celebrate the profound contributions Black people have made, and continue to make, to society. 

Since its inception, Black History Month has been guided by an annual theme, and this year is no exception. Its founders—Dr. Carter G. Woodsen, George Cleveland Hall, William B. Hartgrove, Jesse E. Moorland, Alexander L. Jackson, and James E. Stamps—sought to uplift Black legacy, traditions, and cultural pride. The 2026 theme, “A Century of Black History Commemorations,” highlights the contributions of Black Americans in recognition of the nation’s 250th Anniversary of Independence. At its core, Black History Month is dedicated toreclaiming history in the face of erasure, exclusion, and discrimination. 

Dr. Carter G. Woodson, an activist, scholar, educator, and the second Black person to earn a Ph.D. from Harvard University, is widely regarded as the “Father of Black History.” In 1926, he established Negro History Week to educate the public on the cultural and historical impact of Black people. Dr. Woodson intentionally chose the second week in February to coincide with the birthdays of Abe Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, two great figures “symbolically” tied to Black Liberation. 

A strong advocate for the scientific study of Black life and history, Dr. Woodson founded the Association for the Study of African American Life and History (ASLAH) after witnessing Illinois’s celebration of the 15th anniversary of emancipation, which centered Black progress and achievement. He collaborated with Black intellectuals, civic organizations, and the fraternity brothers of the Divine Nine Omega Psi Phi to help share the responsibility of documenting, preserving, and uplifting Black excellence. 

Dr. Woodson never intended for Black History to be confined to one week. Instead, Woodson urged schools to use Negro History Week to showcase what students learned throughout the year. Although President Gerald Ford became the first president to officially recognize Black History Month in 1976, it would take another decade for the month to be federally recognized. 

In keeping with the theme, it would be remiss of us not to honor the countless Black women who worked tirelessly to uplift Black history and affirm Black presence. Their work extended far beyond a single week or month, shaping recognition, resistance, and progress every single day.

Mamdani and Hochul Announce Plan to Make N.Y. Child Care Universal

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

It has only been a few weeks since the new Mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, took office, and he is already putting new initiatives into action. Both the New York Governor, Kathy Hochul, and Mayor Mamdani announced on January 8 a new investment in affordable health and child care in the state. New York will be delivering free child care for two-year-olds (2-Care) and strengthening the programming for three-year-olds (3K). 

Governor Hochul, as a mother herself, has long held that “the cost of childcare is simply too high” for all families across the state. Since taking office in 2021, Hochul has expanded access to affordable childcare through investments totalling more than 8 billion dollars, paving the way for universal childcare statewide. The number of children served by state childcare vouchers has almost doubled in just a few years. 

This new addition to ensuring free child care access in New York will make Pre-K “truly universal.” This new step to expand child-care subsidies and support neighboring counties beyond NYC is intended to help make Pre-K truly universal and ensure affordable child care is accessible to all families across the state.

The Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) will now be overseen by the newly created Office of Child Care and Early Education. This office will ensure programming across the state continues to meet the local government’s vision. 

Recognizing that programs like these depend heavily on the workforce, the state continues to expand Pell grants, which encourage universities to develop early childhood education programs, ensuring that providers and staff feel supported and secure.

Many states have undertaken similar initiatives, including Florida, which launched its Voluntary Pre Kindergarten Program. This program offers free kindergarten to all 4-year-olds, regardless of income. Similarly, Vermont’s Universal PreK (UPK) provides high-quality educational services for children ages 3-5, and recently received $13 million in federal funding to support the program. 

As New York pursues this mission, it invites reflection on federal policies and their impact, encouraging neighboring states and the Department of Education (DOE) to consider how their initiatives and programs can be better reformed. At a time when the economy is becoming increasingly strenuous for many families, we need more states to invest in affordable and accessible child-care options for their futures.

What is the Pregnant Students’ Rights Act Missing?

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

In December 2025, H.R.6359, the Pregnant Students’ Rights Act, was introduced by Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA-2) and then referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. On the surface, the bill is intended to require higher education institutions to provide information to pregnant students to support them through pregnancy and the postpartum period. However, supporters of reproductive healthcare access view it as a “thinly veiled anti-abortion law which would not address the key barriers to pregnant students’ educational attainment, but would instead further shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes.”

While access to services and clear information is critical for pregnant students seeking to meet their academic goals without being penalized by pregnancy stigma, the bill in its current form falls short. As written, the bill misses key provisions and risks deepening existing gaps, particularly at a time when the nation is increasingly divided on reproductive rights. If passed in its current state, the bill would do nothing more than limit students’ ability to choose, as it fails to provide any initiatives that would help pregnant students and parents remain enrolled and succeed academically. The language of the bill only mentions providing information for pregnant students that plan to carry a baby to term, not students that are interested in exploring other options. 

In response, the Coalition for Pregnant and Student Advocacy spoke out in opposition to the bill. The coalition claimed the bill would “reinforce structural and institutional bias and scrutiny of the decisions students make regarding their personal lives.” Crucially, the coalition emphasized that the problem is not a lack of services on paper. Rather, pregnant and parenting students are often routinely denied the resources, accommodations, and institutional support they need to thrive, leaving many feeling isolated and disconnected from their campus communities. 

This context matters. In 2024, more than 5.4 million students were parents, spanning undergraduate and graduate programs Yet student parents are often forced to navigate at least 11 large policy systems, from public schools to child care. Traditional students, by contrast, typically navigate only one. 

As the coalition argues, meaningful legislation would address the interconnected policy systems that parents and pregnant people are required to navigate. This includes access to basic needs, childcare, housing stability, and flexible location and scheduling accommodations. Without coordinated policies and practical implementation, information alone is insufficient to support students’ educational goals in a holistic and sustainable way.

As Congress determines the future of H.R. 6359, policymakers must ask whether the bill meaningfully addresses the real needs of pregnant and parenting students. Without enforceable support and systemic accommodations, information alone falls short. Students deserve policies that respect bodily autonomy and enable them to pursue their education without sacrificing their well-being. 

Black Maternal Health Crisis Continues to Plague the United States

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

On Friday, January 2, 2026, Dr. Janelle Green Smith died from complications during the birth of her first child in South Carolina. Dr. Green Smith was a Black midwife, an esteemed Doctor of Nursing Practice, and an advocate for maternal health and midwifery. Dr. Green Smith’s death joins the many who have fallen victim to the Black maternal health crisis in the United States. She suffered at the hands of the same system she worked tirelessly to reform. 

In addition to being a certified midwife and nurse in the state, Dr. Green Smith worked with the Hive Impact Fund, a nonprofit dedicated to supporting “parents during early childhood by offering, with dignity, tangible resources and accessible education to ease stress and strengthen families” through low-cost mental health services. 

As an advocate, Dr. Green Smith “wanted to be a part of the solution” in health care by truly listening to the needs and concerns of her patients. Dr. Green Smith would go above and beyond to ensure her patients were comfortable and supported through pregnancy, labor, and into their next steps as parents. Despite all of her efforts rooted in patient-centered care, the Black maternal health crisis did not bypass the life of the midwife. 

In a statement responding to the doctor’s death, the National Black Nurses Association, noted that “Black women, regardless of education, professional expertise, or proximity to healthcare, remain at disproportionate risk during pregnancy and childbirth due to systemic failures in care.” This reality is not new. Historically, the narrative was pushed that Black women do not feel pain and they have been used as experimental bodies, especially in modern gynecology. 

In an updated 2023 report, 18.6% of maternal deaths were among Black women, which is significantly higher than among white women (14.5%), Asian women (10.7%), and Hispanic women (12.4%). Additionally, recent research shows that Black women are still three times as likely to experience pregnancy-related deaths as white women. 

Even though 80% of pregnancy-related deaths in the U.S. are preventable, many of these deaths are impacted by inequities in health care and access. With the current administration, there have been significant cuts to and closures of many essential departments in the medical field. These cuts have impacted the Division of Reproductive Health, which has been responsible for issuing guidelines for providing contraceptives to sickle cell patients, who are at increased risk of pregnancy complications, the closure of the Pregnancy Risk Monitoring System (PRAMS), which is responsible for reporting and measuring the progress of health care for pregnant women and infants, and cuts to Medicaid and Medicare funding for reproductive health services. These cuts have only magnified this crisis. 

As we mourn the life of Dr. Green Smith, the United States must recognize that more deaths like this will continue unless we make the necessary reforms to our healthcare system. Health care should be equitable, accessible, and patient-centered. As Dr. Green Smith prioritized listening to her patients and refrained from relying solely on her expertise, we urge the government to do the same. Now is the time to stop further cuts to lifesaving programs that protect and prevent further damage from the crisis; it is now the time to advocate for change. 

China Increases Tax on Contraceptives in an Attempt to Boost Birth Rate

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

On January 1st, 2026, China implemented a 13% VAT (value-added tax) on birth control and other forms of contraception to boost birth rates. China, the world’s second-largest economy, has been experiencing a decline in its birth rate, especially over the last three years. This tax move is intended to help boost ‘fertility-friendly’ measures and “love education.” 

Before 2015, China had a one-child policy from 1980 to 2015 that limited most urban households to a single child and assigned birth quotas to women and families, with penalties for having more than the allocated quota. However, in 2021, in an effort to address the aging population, low workforce participation, and the state’s economy, the Chinese government abolished the policy. Still, it did not have the intended effect, as birth rates have continued to decline since then.

Because deaths are more frequent than births in the country, even with increasing the number of children that can be born in a single household from one to three, much of the population considers having children to be more costly. The costs of child care, education, and job uncertainty due to the state of the workforce are all contributing factors. 

Although the government has made efforts to encourage the alternative, with annual childcare subsidies, lifting restrictions on marriage, offering extended parental leave, and other cash incentives for potential parents, this has proven difficult. Rapid urbanization has left many families already struggling to find space to live and to afford their current lives, making having children more of a burden than a blessing. 

Notably, in 2024, the YuWa Population Research Institute reported that China is one of the most expensive countries to raise a child, primarily due to school fees, the competitive nature of education, and the difficulty of balancing work and parenting, especially for women. The cost of raising a child was 6.3% higher than the country’s GDP per capita, a gap that becomes even more apparent for women who take maternity leave and return to the workforce only to experience a12-17% wage cut. 

The report also noted that “some women have to give up having children in exchange for the opportunity to succeed in their careers.” Despite government incentives, the report found that many women see China’s social environment as not conducive with both having children and achieving economic security and career success.

This push for expanding families is in the interest of promoting national economic growth. By imposing a tax on products that were free when the government wanted to curb births, the government is now trying to assert control over the bodies of many Chinese women and make contraceptives less accessible.

China’s decision to tax contraception underscores a troubling pattern: when demographic goals change, women’s bodies become tools of state policy. Instead of addressing the structural barriers that make parenthood unaffordable, housing costs, workplace discrimination, and inadequate childcare, the government has chosen a coercive approach that limits reproductive autonomy. History shows that policies rooted in control, rather than support and choice, are unlikely to reverse declining birth rates.

What Australia’s New Social Media Ban May Mean for Young Women

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

Australia has banned social media accounts for young people under 16. This follows a larger government effort to protect minors, especially young women, from potential harms linked to social media, such as body-image issues, mental health challenges, and sexual exploitation. Australia is now the first country to implement such a ban. 

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese expressed his support for the ban in a statement, “This law is about making it easier for you to have a conversation with your child about the risks and harms of engaging online. It’s also about helping parents push back against peer pressure. You don’t have to worry that by stopping your child using ­social media, you’re somehow making them the odd one out. Now, instead of trying to set a ‘family rule’, you can point to a national ban.”

As the ban took effect, the largest social media platforms, including TikTok, were ordered to block access to users under sixteen or face hefty fines. However, many criticize the ban, arguing that social media provides benefits like making connections, self-expression, and entertainment. However, these potential benefits must be weighed against the growing body of evidence documenting serious risks to youth wellbeing.

Social media is constantly saturated with unrealistic, edited images that can alter people’s perception of themselves, with teenage girls being especially vulnerable. Considering that this exposure occurs on such a large scale, young women are presented with curated images of what life could be rather than their actual realities. Research shows that social media has become “a central aspect” of adolescent girls’ lives. Algorithms routinely amplify harmful content, pushing vulnerable youth toward increasingly extreme material, often without their awareness or consent.

During this period, young women consume content that heavily impacts their mental health, contributing to body dissatisfaction, disordered eating patterns, and increased anxiety and depression symptoms. This is especially true if they do not believe they meet the beauty standards that dominate the media. Eating disorders are among the leading causes of death among adolescent young women and these unrealistic depictions of body images only help perpetuate these statistics. Studies have shown that there may be a link between social media and suicide attempts, driven by increased issues with body insecurities and cyberbullying that often go unaddressed. 

Social media is not solely a space for expression and inclusion, and without regulation for such impressionable minds, it can have severe effects on adolescent brains and lives. The part of the brain that processes emotions develops faster than the part responsible for judgment and critical thinking. Social media platforms have become spaces where minors are exposed to grooming, sexual exploitation, and premature sexualization, risks that are often hidden from parents until harm has already occurred. This highlights the need for regulation and national standards to protect vulnerable youth. 

Although efforts to address screen time and social media exposure should come from parents, when a nation takes a stance like Australia has, it establishes a national standard. This standard ensures that, even beyond parental influence, efforts are ongoing to protect young people. 

A Birth Control Battle: Survivors Take Pfizer to Court Over Depo-Provera

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

A lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer relating to Depo-Provera, formally known as depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, a progesterone-based birth control injection you receive once every three months. The lead plaintiff, Robin Phillip, who used the shot for nearly 30 years, is a survivor of intracranial meningioma—a tumor in the lining of the brain. Phillip only stopped using the shot during her two pregnancies and believed that her symptoms were signs of a more serious issue. Although emergency surgery was successful, she lost vision in her left eye and faced a long recovery.

In her claim, along with 1,000 other co-plaintiffs, she states that Pfizer knew about the medication’s effects and risks, but failed to warn its patients. Nonetheless, Pfizer submitted a motion to dismiss the case and reaffirmed its confidence in the medication despite the allegations. 

Recent studies have confirmed that meningiomas are usually not cancerous. However, there are patients who received Depo-Provera that had a higher risk of meningioma, especially with prolonged use and at older ages. Although this area is still under ongoing research, it is known that women are more likely to develop this type of brain tumor by age 50. Additionally, some findings suggest that after using the Depo Shot, pregnancy and menopausal hormone therapy may speed up meningioma growth. 

Although 1 in 4 sexually active women use the Depo injection nationally, Black women use nearly double. This makes Black women even more predisposed to the risk of meningioma in the United States. It has already been proven that Black women are 41% more likely to develop cervical cancer. 

Furthermore, Black women are more likely to be diagnosed with HPV, which often serves as a preliminary diagnosis that can lead to other forms of cancer. Black women are also among the most affected by medical racism and discrimination within the healthcare system. Although the risks of this medication are not taken seriously, it is crucial to recognize how much this medication impacts its largest patient demographic. 

Although the FDA has declined to reevaluate these concerns at this time, other countries have issued warnings about the risks associated with Depo, including European agencies, South Africa, and Canada. This indicates that there is a serious concern with the risks. While the case is not yet fully resolved, the survivors’ testimonies suggest that the FDA and Pfizer may need to evaluate the risks of this medication and consider how to alert consumers. 

A Big Win for Education in Michigan

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

On October 7, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed her seventh education budget, MI SB0166, into law. This bipartisan budget puts parents and kids first, offering significant relief to parents, local school districts, and students. It provides more flexibility to focus on active learning while addressing the daunting realities of food insecurity and large classroom sizes that leave many students overlooked. 

The budget sets forth appropriations for fiscal year 2025-2026, with a special emphasis on grades K-12. The budget details that $248.1 million will be allocated to provide free school breakfasts and lunches for students in public schools, estimated to save households $1000/year. $657 million has been dedicated to providing free Pre-K for 4-year-old learners, regardless of household income. For 3-year-olds in the state, $25 million has been invested in preschool programs. The budget’s focus on promoting active learning is foundational, with $122 million pledged to continue building on literacy initiatives. This emphasis on literacy is the future of education in Michigan, inspiring educators and parents alike.

Additionally, funding per student has been calculated at $10,050, a 4.6% increase that ensures more school supplies, access to books, and other learning resources are reaching every student this budget pledges to support. This increase is $2,312 more than what states contribute federally to K-12 public education and is a clear sign of Michigan’s commitment to the future of education. The budget continues to support after-school programming, infrastructure development, language and special education programs, tuition assistance, scholarships, transportation, and funding for universities and colleges. 

In all of these significant initiatives, one stands out: $321 million to support student mental health and school safety needs. This substantial allocation is a clear sign that Michigan understands and cares about its students’ mental health. In recent years, students across the nation have been coming forward more about the effects that mental health has had on their educational experience. In fact, 50% of middle school students and 56% of high school students share that feeling anxious, depressed, or stressed are obstacles preventing them from being successful in school. Michigan is setting the example for all states to support education and not overlook mental health support for students.  

Education is a right everyone should access without being burdened by costs, food insecurity, or mental health obstacles. In a time when the federal government continues to defund various educational programs and initiatives, it is clear that our government officials fail to account for everyday people. As Michigan leads with an exemplary budget dedicated to addressing these needs and concerns, it reaffirms that there are still good people in this fight for change.

Demolishing the East Wing Is Demolishing Women’s History

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

Last week, the current administration made another attempt to erase women from American History by signing off on the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. The East Wing, infamously referred to as the “people’s house,” will be replaced with a privately-funded $300 billion ballroom, which the President hopes will modernize the East Wing. 

The East Wing has long been the home of the First Lady, which Eleanor Roosevelt first professionalized during her husband’s presidency. Before then, First Ladies did not have a designated space; instead, they worked out of their bedrooms, sitting rooms, and other small spaces they could find. The East Wing, from that day forward, became a space for Women’s History that was not just for show, symbolizing a substantial move towards empowerment. 

Eleanor Roosevelt transformed this space into a site of activism supporting women’s groups from the Girl Scouts, to the Women’s Trade Union League. The issues they discussed were not ornamental or superficial, but were political, economic, and life-changing. Famously, Betty Ford argued for a pay increase for her staff and Michelle Obama led her “Let’s Move Campaign.”

The creation of the East Wing as a professional space allowed First Ladies, and women alike, to be more than just their husbands’ wives. Instead, they could become the passionate activists they were born to be. Disposing of the East Wing actively erases women’s involvement at the White House and that First Ladies can have meaningful agendas. 

It was Betty Ford who tirelessly fought to end sex-based discrimination and said, “if the West Wing is the mind of the nation, then the East Wing is the heart.” Michelle Obama used this space to highlight the importance of public health, and Jill Biden used this space to engage in her work with military families and education. An unnecessary ballroom should not be used to erase the life-changing work that the East Wing has represented. 

Despite the President’s actions to modernize the building he was elected to serve in, the White House is not a private building. President Trump’s term ends in a few years, but the White House will live on with every subsequent generation. 

It is our duty to preserve this country’s history in the fight for Women’s equality. The White House is the people’s house, and women’s history is American history. Instead of being erased, the East Wing, a symbol of this history, should not be overlooked in favor of a ballroom that will only promote exclusivity. 

The Gendered Toll of U.S. Immigration Policy

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

Since 2025, the United States has witnessed an explosive surge in the number of people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In just 4 months of Trump’s second term, there has been a 17% increase compared to his first term. Since Biden’s presidency, the detention rates have skyrocketed by 46%. This extreme level of mass deportation is disproportionately affecting a population of minority women. The most vulnerable of these women are those who are pregnant or have recently given birth.

Under President Biden, ICE was barred from arresting or detaining immigrants who are pregnant, postpartum or nursing. Although Trump has not rescinded this policy, the numerous lawsuits and firsthand accounts from women prove that it is not being followed. 

One such case is that of Antonia Aguilar Maldonado, a mother of two from El Salvador, who was arrested by ICE and detained for almost a month, despite still nursing her youngest son. The jail was not equipped to house someone who was nursing and did not have a breast pump. Maldonano was forced to use her hands to massage milk out until the facility was able to buy a pump.

Angie Rodriguez, a Colombian immigrant, was also detained after a routine ICE check. While detained, she struggled to eat meals due to the inedible options, and unfortunately, would later miscarry while in custody. Failure to see immigration and mass deportation through a gendered lens continues to silence the lived experiences of women like Maldonano and Rodriguez, and these are only two instances. 

A report by Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) documented at least 14 cases of pregnant women being mistreated in detention facilities between January 2025 and July 2025. Pregnant detainees were reported to be sleeping on cell floors, denied medical support, and miscarrying alone.

As women and pregnant people continue to be detained at alarming rates, the conditions in which women like Maldonado and Rodriguez were kept in are a grave injustice. It has been reported that women are being shackled while being transported and experiencing miscarriages. They are denied access to medical translators, prenatal vitamins and care, and forced to undergo medical care without consent. They are also experiencing a lack of food and other forms of nutrition.  

The ACLU reported in a letter directed towards the ICE that, although ICE has the statutory mandate to release those who have been certified as pregnant on parole, they have failed to do so since January 2025. Instead, ICE has issued detainers, arrested, and taken pregnant individuals into custody even after being made aware of their conditions, and has taken to detaining many women during reports of domestic abuse. Not only is this illegal, but it also sets an unsafe precedent for women and pregnant people suffering through continued abuse because of fear of being detained or deported. 

The administration has continued to fail in protecting the rights of women in this country, regardless of citizenship. Although there are federal statutes intended to govern these injustices, this administration has once again shown a lack of care for the law of the land they swear by. Instead, departments like the Department of Homeland Security claim that these are all just false allegations, and continue to detain and deport as if they are protecting the country. 

This widespread neglect and abuse within ICE detention centers highlights the urgent need to hold the agency accountable and to adopt immigration policies that prioritize the safety, dignity, and human rights of women and pregnant people.

Leaked Young Republicans Chat Exposes Deep-Rooted Racism and Hate Within the Party’s Ranks

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

On Tuesday, October 14, Politico released exclusive messages from private group chats among members of the Young Leaders Republican organizations. The leaked messages revealed horrifying racial slurs, antisemitic comments, and even references to genocidal violence, all exchanged by individuals pledging loyalty to Donald Trump. While shocking, this behavior is not unprecedented in today’s political climate. Still, there is never any justification for such vile, dehumanizing rhetoric.

This chat, created by Peter Giunta, the former chair of the New York State Young Republicans (NYRS), was originally intended to rally support for his campaign for chair of the National Young Republicans organization. Yet, it quickly devolved into 2,900 pages worth of hateful, extremist content entitled the “Restoyer War Room.”

In one exchange, Giunta declared “I love Hitler” after Kansas Chair Alex Dwyer commented that a Michigan member planned to vote for “the most right-wing person” in the race. Giunta also threatened that anyone who voted against him would be “going to the gas chamber,” to which others replied, “I’m ready to watch people burn now,” and “When do we bring that side out?” Not one participant appeared to object to the grotesque references to the Holocaust, an atrocity that claimed the lives of six million Jewish people.

The hate didn’t stop there. Group members used racist slurs and tropes to describe Black people, calling them “monkeys,” “the watermelon people,” and repeatedly using the n-word, and boasted that a teenage chapter “supports slavery and all that sh-t.” They celebrated being in a hotel room numbered 1488, a white supremacist code combining “14 Words” (“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children”) and “88,” shorthand for “Heil Hitler.”

What began as a campaign chat became, as Politico put it, “a blur of slurs and violent fantasies.” Members joked about the rape of Indigenous women by colonial settlers, used homophobic and transphobic slurs against opponents, and even encouraged sexual violence and suicide.

The Young Republican National Federation has publicly condemned the racism, antisemitism, and hate expressed in the chats. But condemnation after exposure does not erase the fact that these messages came from individuals who hold, or aspire to hold, positions of power in Republican politics. Since the Trump era, the line between extremist rhetoric and mainstream politics has blurred, with many young conservatives embracing hate speech as a way to prove their loyalty and avoid being labeled “RINOs.”

Let’s be clear: racism and white supremacy never disappeared, they’ve even become bolder in recent years. Many of the individuals in this chat hold government or party roles. Across the country, white nationalist movements are growing; in Arkansas, one group is building a “segregated community” to promote “European ancestry.” Simultaneously, state governments are banning the teaching of history about genocide and slavery, and restricting access to abortion, contraception, and gender-affirming care.

America was founded on the claim that “all men are created equal,” yet it codified slavery, denied women’s citizenship, and forced Indigenous people off their lands. Equality in this country has always been something people have had to fight for, not something freely granted. The “Restoyer War Room” is not an anomaly; it is a mirror reflecting the unfinished work of justice in America.

If we are still fighting for equality today, it’s because that fight is far from over.

Supreme Court Case Could Threaten Colorado’s Ban on Harmful Conversion Therapy

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

On Tuesday, October 7, the United States Supreme Court heard opening arguments in a case brought by a religious counselor who claims that Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy violates her First Amendment right to free speech. While a decision isn’t expected until later this year, the case could have major implications for LGBTQIA+ rights and professional standards in counseling. 

Kaley Chiles, the petitioner, is an Evangelical Christian licensed talk therapist. She claims that much of her clientele “seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires.” Chiles argues that Colorado’s ban, which prohibits medical professionals from engaging in conversion therapy, limits her ability to provide faith-based counseling.

Conversion therapy is defined as:  

Any practice or treatment by a licensed physician specializing in the practice of psychiatry that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.

Under Colorado’s House Bill 19-1129, licensed medical professionals are prohibited from engaging in any treatment aimed at reducing or eliminating same-sex attraction or altering gender expression. Chiles argued in the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that the federal court should prevent the state from enforcing the ban because it would affect her ability to practice and provide her clients with the services they seek. Her arguments centered on the belief that the Colorado ban infringed upon her First Amendment Right under the United States Constitution, with particular reference to the right to speak and think freely, which was part of her role as a talk therapist for minors. In other words, she considers her professional conduct to be protected by the First Amendment. However, the 10th Circuit Court upheld the ban, ruling that Chiles’ conduct was not protected speech, but rather professional conduct regulated by state standards. 

Following her’ appeal, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case this term. The question that the Supreme Court will be answering is: 

Does a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulate conduct or violate the Free Speech Clause? 

Although this case is not scheduled to be decided until later this year, the court has begun to indicate how it will proceed in determining the case. Critically, a majority of the court, across ideological lines, seemed inclined to rule against the Colorado law, with Justice Alito stating that the ban “looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination.” However, another perspective shared by Justice Jackson is that “medical doctors would clearly be liable if they used a medication that the state deemed substandard care.” 

This case is more than a legal technicality. It poses a potential threat to the right of individuals to live authentically, without fear of being coerced or pressured to change who they are. If the Court overturns Colorado’s ban, it could weaken protections for LGBTQIA+ people nationwide. The Supreme Court should be careful not to conflate professional conduct with personal belief, especially in matters affecting health, safety, and human dignity.

New South Carolina Bill Sparks Concern Over Criminalization of Abortion and Contraception

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

In South Carolina, the state legislature is currently considering a bill that poses an immediate threat to the reproductive rights of millions. The Unborn Child Protection Act is aimed at creating and regulating stricter access to abortions and contraceptives at large. 

The bill aims to define stricter limits on reproductive rights language, as well as significantly amend the state code on the issue of abortion. Particularly with emphasis on Section 44-41-615 of the S.C. Code, constituting a felony to administer, prescribe, sell, and or deliver any form of medication, pharmaceutical, or substance that, with “specific intent,” will cause an abortion. People convicted of offending any of the elements of the bill can face imprisonment for up to 30 years for successfully or unsuccessfully administering an abortion. 

Additionally, the bill applies to anyone who uses any medical instrument, instruments at large, devices, means, or procedures upon a pregnant person with the intent to perform an abortion. It would make it illegal to know of or knowingly distribute, sell, possess, and advertise what this state legislature refers to as “abortifacient” (mifepristone, misoprostol, or any other chemical drug that is used with the intent of causing an abortion).

This bill moves beyond restricting access for those who are pregnant to criminalizing anyone who works, helps, or supplies any abortion care. Additionally, with these radical shifts and these stipulations, the state would have the strictest abortion ban in the country. 

By adding new language to the existing state code, this bill is not just a legal document; it is a direct threat to the rights and choices of individuals. It actively removes the exceptions for being able to have an abortion, particularly in instances of rape, incest, and fetal anomaly. The language in the revised bill, which is still pending in the state senate, actively removes any provisions to account for these circumstances. Instead, this bill works to criminalize choice, affecting the lives of many individuals. 

In addition to amending the language for abortion in the code, this bill also aims to redefine access to contraceptives. The revision states that so long as a contraceptive is not used to cause or induce an abortion it is allowed, but in so many cases, this language does not clearly set out the language for Plan B and other emergency contraceptives. Yet still, there has been extensive language on the many ways that persons will be prosecuted if they participate in “abortion related” activities, such as helping a young person go to another state to have an abortion. 

In South Carolina, a pro-life group, South Carolina Citizens For Life, has also spoken up against the bill, arguing that ‘Pro-lifers understand better than anyone else the desire to punish the purveyors of abortion who act callously and without regard to the dignity of human life. But turning women who have abortions into criminals, as S323 does, is not the way.’ This bipartisan concern powerfully underscores how much this bill could create significant damage in the State. 

When one person loses the right to make decisions about their own body, it impacts us all. Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, restrictions on reproductive healthcare have multiplied across the country, leaving millions without access to essential care. While anti-abortion extremists continue to promote policies and narratives that restrict access to reproductive healthcare, it becomes our duty to stand up for our rights. It becomes our mission to create a world where everybody, regardless of their choice, is free to live and not criminalized. It is our right to fight for a more just future.

Supreme Court appears poised to support Oregon city’s measures against public sleeping

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

Photo by Mihály Köles 

On Monday, April 22, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the case City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, marking one of the most significant cases on the issue of homelessness in years. This case comes amidst a record number of 650,000 people in 2023 reported as experiencing homelessness in the United States, a 12% increase from the previous year, highlighting the urgent need for reform and solutions to this crisis. The Supreme Court has elected to consider the moral question of “whether or not cities can punish people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking.”  

The City of Grants Pass v. Johnson case initially centered on Grants Pass, OR, a small city with a population of under 40,000, where individuals were fined $295 for sleeping outside despite rising living costs from 2013 to 2018. The plaintiff, Johnson, involuntarily homeless, was fined for sleeping in her van and camping in a public park. In response, the Oregon Law Center filed a suit in 2020, arguing that “unhoused people cannot be penalized for sleeping outside on public property without adequate alternatives.” The Medford Federal District Court agreed, citing violations of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause and Excessive Fines Clause due to the absence of low-barrier shelters or alternative accommodations.

As this case awaits the Supreme Court’s decision, justices have made notable comments. Justice Sotomayor remarked, “You don’t arrest people who are sleeping on the beach,” while Justice Kagan acknowledged, “sleeping is a biological necessity,” underscoring that basic human needs should not be criminalized. Homelessness, rooted in systemic issues such as capitalism, is fundamentally a human problem. However, conservative judges have complicated matters by framing homelessness, the right to rest, shelter, and opportunity in overly complex ways. Failing to address homelessness beyond fines and blame risks further harm to those already struggling involuntarily.

Beyond Oregon, California, with the highest homelessness rate, has also tackled this crisis. In Sacramento in 2022, voters passed the Emergency Shelter and Enforcement Act, prohibiting camping on public property with a misdemeanor fine for noncompliance, contingent on available shelter accommodations. San Diego enacted the Unsafe Camping Ordinance with similar provisions. However, enforcement of these laws hinges on the availability of housing options. The prevailing view among lawmakers is the urgent need for safe accommodations for all.

As the Supreme Court deliberates, it is imperative to recognize that criminalizing human needs is not a viable solution. Addressing homelessness requires comprehensive, compassionate approaches that prioritize shelter, support, and dignity for all individuals.

Unpacking Trump’s Unprecedented Legal Saga

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

Former President Trump is currently embroiled in four criminal cases, facing a total of 91 felony counts. Among these cases, The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump is currently underway, garnering significant media coverage. This case, commonly referred to as the “Hush Money Case,” is the first of the criminal trials that the former president is facing as he gears up for the 2024 Presidential election. Trump’s indictment in March of last year marked a historic moment, as he became the first former President of the United States to face criminal charges.

The “Hush Money Case” revolves around allegations that Trump falsified business records after paying off former adult film actress Stormy Daniels to conceal an extramarital affair they had in 2006. To reduce the likelihood of political scandal during the 2016 election, the former president paid $130,000 in hush money to Daniels. Then, when Trump became president, he used funds from his business to pay his former lawyer, Michael Cohen. 

Recently, the trial for this case commenced, with nearly 100 prospective jurors initially summoned. However, approximately 50 were quickly dismissed due to concerns about impartiality. Outside the courthouse, anti-Trump protesters made their voices heard, reflecting the public interest in the case. 12 jurors have now been selected for the case.  

Apart from the “Hush Money Case,” Trump faces legal challenges in Georgia, Florida, and D.C. In Georgia, he is accused of interfering in the 2020 Presidential election by pressuring officials to “find 11,780 votes,” the margin he needed to surpass Biden’s vote count. While some charges in this case were dismissed, Trump and other defendants await trial for remaining felony offenses.

In D.C., Trump is charged with conspiracy-related offenses linked to his alleged interference in the 2020 election, including obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. Similarly, in Florida, he faces charges related to hoarding classified documents without proper clearance. Despite attempts to dismiss some cases, Trump awaits his trials as the American people weigh these legal challenges alongside their electoral decisions in November.

Polling reveals young voters’ priorities in the upcoming election

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

As the election approaches, attention remains focused on young voter engagement. On April 18th, the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics unveiled its Bi-Annual Harvard Youth Poll. From March 14th to 21st, the survey reached 2,010 young individuals aged 18 to 29. The findings shed light on key concerns among young voters, with Harvard’s Institute of Politics Director Setti Warren noting their growing interest in issues like the economy, foreign policy, immigration, and climate. Warren remarked that young people nationwide are increasingly eager to make their voices heard at the ballot box come November.

According to the survey results, President Joe Biden holds an eight-point lead over former President Trump among young voters. Notably, Biden leads by six points among men and thirty-three points among women. This is evidence of what Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation, coined as the “gender gap” in the 1980s. The gender gap is the difference in how men and women vote. Smeal initially attributed this gap to the Republican party’s failure to ratify the ERA constitutionally, which remains a strong identifier in election polling and analysis today. The Harvard results show a clear divide, suggesting that young women are leaning further left than men.

Among college students, Biden maintains a 23-point lead over Trump and a 47-point lead among college graduates. Additionally, while a significant portion of young Americans believe that the United States has an immigration crisis, they also believe that immigrants contribute positively to American culture and are against building a border wall. Half of the respondents believe that immigrants actively work to enhance the country’s cultural fabric and 45% disagree with the notion that immigrants lead to increased crime. This perspective underscores a more progressive mindset among young voters, shaping their expectations for candidates in this election.

In 2023, the Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. Magazine, in partnership with Lake Research Partners, conducted a survey determining the most motivating issues for voters. The poll found that 74% of all voters support a person’s right to make their own reproductive decisions without government interference. Among these voters who support abortion rights, especially younger women, abortion and women’s rights combined are top issues that will determine their vote in November. 60% of voters identified as feminists, and 7 in 10 voters supported placing the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution. Abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment are strong voter turnout issues separately but even more powerful when combined. ​​ 

Still, in Harvard’s poll, only nine percent of young people believe the country is heading in the right direction, reflecting a lack of confidence in the current administration. Approval ratings for President Biden and his administration stand at thirty-one percent, a slight dip from Fall 2023. While a majority support student debt relief, Biden’s other economic, foreign policy, and environmental initiatives received lower approval ratings. This dissatisfaction underscores a need for the administration to address concerns among young voters, especially as issues like reproductive justice and rights continue to divide the nation.

Georgetown Law hosts ERA conference to strategize for the future

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

Rep. Cori Bush (MO-01) and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) join moderators for a discussion on the ERA.

Last Friday, April 12th, Georgetown Law, in partnership with the ERA Project at Columbia Law, hosted an inspiring conference entitled, “The Present and Future of the Equal Rights Amendment,” bringing together distinguished legal scholars, members of Congress, and political organizers to discuss the critical need for the ERA. The Columbia ERA Project, established in 2021, has been working tirelessly to raise awareness about the need to develop gender-based policies and justice.

Keynote remarks from Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Rep. Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), and Rep. Cori Bush (MO-01) reminded us about the importance of the grassroots initiatives and the current strategies dedicated to enshrining the ERA into the Constitution, including the joint resolution in both the House and Senate to remove the timeline and the House discharge petition to bring the ERA to the floor for a vote. Rep. Jennifer McClellan (VA-04) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) also both recorded video messages to share their personal commitments to the ERA. 

The unique circumstances surrounding the history of the ERA continue to make it the center of an extensive conversation in constitutional law and at the forefront of the fight for gender equality. The conference began with a panel of legal experts who explored the path the ERA has taken over the past 100 years and the ERA’s impact on our current democracy. The ERA is argued to have faced the most roadblocks as an amendment and yet has also received the most bipartisan support. As discussed in the panel, a proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the states, or 38. The main legal disagreements surrounding the ERA have focused on the arbitrary timeline for ratification included in the preamble to the amendment when it passed Congress in 1972. Since the time limit was not included in the text of the amendment, the states did not vote on that language and it is not considered binding. Therefore, the ERA has met all requirements necessary to be a certified amendment to the US Constitution. 

What can you contribute to the movement: 

  • Sign the petition at SignERA: This is a petition dedicated to raising awareness and support for the importance of certifying the ERA as the 28th amendment. 
  • Campus organizing: Students can start their own Sign4ERA petition campaign on their college campus!
  • Reach out to your representatives: Rep. Pressley and Rep. Bush have both encouraged constituents to contact their elected officials to urge them to join the ERA Congressional Caucus. In addition, constituents can also inquire about where their representatives stand on the issue and if they have signed the discharge petition. 

Thank you to Victoria Nourse, a dedicated ERA activist, for hosting this event!

>