Blog

Turkey, pumpkin pie, stuffing, casseroles, maybe some football – these are some of the things that typically come to mind around the topic of Thanksgiving. Every year, families travel by planes, trains and automobiles to spend the last Thursday of November with their loved ones, noshing on a bountiful harvest of foods to kick off the holiday season. While many have fond memories of celebrating Thanksgiving, the national holiday unfortunately has a bloody past that not many people truly know about.

In school, Americans have been fed a narrative that Thanksgiving is centered around pilgrims and Indigenous Peoples living in harmony. In reality, we live on land that was stolen by means of genocide, including the forced removal of its original residents.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer article, “Should We Rename Thanksgiving ‘National Ethnic Cleansing Day?", documents show that while a small group of pilgrims did celebrate a harvest festival with local natives at the start of their second year in the New World, it wasn’t exactly called “Thanksgiving,” nor was it a ritual.

Instead, the first official holiday more or less reflected the arduous relationship between the white settlers and Native Americans– something that most people probably didn’t learn about in school. This occurred 16 years after the Puritans’ first winter, when Massachusetts Bay Governor William Bradford designated “a day of thanksgiving kept in all the churches for victories against the Pequots.” Disturbingly, the only natives present were those taken captive during a bloody raid that preceded it.

The Pequot Massacre, as it’s known, happened on May 26, 1637. It was the final blow over four years of skirmishes between four colonies with their native allies and the Pequots, a tribe of more than 8,000 spanning most of Connecticut. Two colonial officers led a group of several hundred men to the Pequot settlement and burned it, setting fire to 80 huts that housed 800 people. Over 700 Pequot died in the massacre; survivors were hunted and slain, or sold into slavery.

For decades after this massacre, annual religious ceremonies and fast days were held in its memory. Thanksgiving was made an official holiday by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, less than a year after the nation’s largest ever mass execution – the hanging of 38 Sioux men in Minnesota. Since 1970, Native Americans have gathered every Thanksgiving at Plymouth Rock for a National Day of Mourning, in remembrance of the Pequot people and the tragedies that occurred in 1637, and the years following.

So where do we go from here? Writer Anna Mindess of Berkleyside highlights ways to acknowledge and commemorate Thanksgiving from local Indigenous People, in order to celebrate the holiday respectfully.

Here at Mojave Desert Skin Shield, we celebrate this day with a bow to the First Nations by communing together with dishes from our respective lineages. We give thanks to Mother Earth and to those who receive us immigrants here; together continuing to forgive and heal from an unjust past, with eyes towards a just future.

Read more

Hailed widely as one of the most consequential election cycles in modern American history, the 2022 US midterms came with no shortage of anticipation. A “red wave” was expected to sweep across the nation, offering a rebuke to President Biden’s policies and giving an ascendant Republican Party the chance to stymie his agenda until the end of his term in 2025. Yet now that the 2022 midterms are close to completion (a few close races in the House are still being tallied as of publication), we see that a different narrative played out. Republicans still made gains in the House, but the outcome was almost unequivocally a failure relative to what they had forecast. Below are the most important takeaways from these midterms, along with their potential implications for the USA’s political future:

Incumbents Are Here to Stay: Leading up to November 8th, an array of polls showed that Americans were generally dissatisfied with the direction their country was headed in. This, naturally, could only lead to one conclusion – that the representatives who were already in office, and therefore responsible for that direction, would likely be held accountable and voted out. Republican advocates decried a Democratic party whose policies had supposedly caused increases in inflation and crime, and insisted that the time for change was upon us. Surprisingly, this didn’t play out as planned: in a largely unprecedented outcome, only six incumbent Democrats and three incumbent Republicans have thus far lost their seats in the House; and no incumbent Senator running for reelection has been defeated, though the runoff in Georgia could change that. What could have caused this?

Democrats point to the fact that several Trump-supported candidates won the Republican primaries, which may have deterred moderate voters from following the usual path of voting against the incumbent party. Many of these candidates touted extremist views, including skepticism or outright denial of the 2020 presidential election results and anti-abortion sentiments that made no exception for rape or incest. None of this was a mistake, either – during the primaries, Democrats funded several MAGA Republicans because they believed these candidates would increase Democrats’ chances of winning in the general elections. Whether or not it was ethical to bankroll the campaigns of candidates who pose a deep existential threat to our democracy is its own question, but strategically, it panned out.

Super PACs Are Only Getting Stronger: Between 2021 and 2022, over $16.7 billion was spent on election campaigns, easily eclipsing the previous midterm record of $14 billion that was spent during the 2018 election cycle. This is due in large part to the predominance of Super PACs, which have become increasingly influential since the passage of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United verdict in 2010. These “political action committees” serve largely as instruments of power for billionaire donors from both sides of the aisle who until 2010 could only donate limited amounts of money to campaigns of their choice. 38% of political donations in the 2022 midterms came from the top 1% of earners in the US, and they tended to favor Republican causes over Democratic ones. The role of money in politics, it seems, is only growing, and Super PACs continue to be its primary vessel. Many ads on TV or the internet that appeared to be run by a candidate’s campaign were, in fact, run by a Super PAC built to support a specific agenda – this isn’t going to change anytime soon.

Abortion Rights Inspired Voter Turnout: On August 2nd, traditionally conservative voters in Kansas delivered what would become a bellwether for the midterms – an overwhelming majority rejected a ballot measure that would have allowed state legislators to ban abortion. This gave Democratic strategists the directive they needed as they built their election campaigns for the next few months. If Kansans were this passionately pro-choice, then the rest of the country would probably fall right in line. As a result, Democratic candidates placed an outsize emphasis on the threat that Republicans pose to reproductive rights across the country. The strategy paid off – Democratic voters emphasized reproductive rights as one of the key issues that inspired them to vote this election cycle. Though there’s no guarantee that abortion will remain a central topic of discussion in American politics over the coming years, it was certainly a vital touchpoint this time around.

MAGA is Starting to Show Cracks: Several Republican candidates who won their primaries after receiving endorsements from Donald Trump would go on to lose their general elections, suggesting that the populist movement on the right is starting to lose steam. Perhaps most notably, all but one candidate for Secretary of State who harped on the false narrative of election fraud – calling themselves the “America First” candidates – were summarily defeated in their races.

For better or for worse, the “Big Lie” story that’s been pushed since 2020 is inextricable from the man who originated it. Since November 8th, various Republicans have already started to distance themselves from Donald Trump. Perhaps this marks the end of his status as kingmaker for the entire party, but seeing as he has prevailed from greater political odds, we don’t want to speak too soon. Our fingers are crossed – ridding ourselves of his insidious populism would be nothing short of a blessing for the country and the world at large.

Younger Voters Turned Out: The narrative that Generation Z single handedly saved the US from a predicted red wave is a bit overblown – in fact, it was thanks to high voter turnout across the board – but younger voters certainly played a major role in the midterms’ final outcome. In John Fetterman’s race against Mehmet Oz, for instance, the margin of victory was only 4 percentage points, but younger people (ages 18-29) favored the Democrat by 40 percentage points. The 27% turnout rate for younger people was the second highest for any midterm, eclipsed only by the 2018 elections, when young voters showed up in droves to repudiate the Republican agenda. It appears as if a trend is starting to emerge: younger people have been showing up to vote for the past three election cycles, and they have been consistently favoring Democrats by a wide margin. If this continues while more of Generation Z reaches eligible voting age, we could see Democrats take a sizable legislative majority in the years to come.

Many of us have breathed a collective sigh of relief since it became clear that the red wave would not, in fact, be taking place. All of this speaks to the future of our country – that perhaps, somewhere deep down in America’s collective subconscious, there is still a desire for our democracy and basic social services to function as they’re intended to. While it’s too soon to say we’ve moved past the antagonism that’s consumed us for the last six years, the results of these midterms do offer a ray of hope. Maybe, just maybe, our representatives can heed voters’ collective call and work across the aisle in good faith.

Read more

Over the past month, we’ve had no shortage of updates from the mainstream media about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or the upcoming elections that will determine the balance of power in the US. While both stories definitely carry a great deal of urgency, an equally important one – the series of uprisings across Iran that pose a very real threat to the national government – has received relatively scant coverage. The occasional mentions of the “protests” since they began last month fail to reflect how dramatically the Iranian opposition movement has evolved: it has far more political traction than any protest that preceded it, including the country’s presidential election protests in 2009, its general strikes in 2018, and its fuel price protests in 2019. Chants of “don’t call it protests, call it a revolution” come from a people that continue to seek recognition from their own authoritarian government and an international community that sits idly by.

Since the Revolution of 1979 put the current Islamic Republic in power, several restrictions have relegated Iranian women to a position of subservience: women can’t sing or play music in public; they are forbidden from attending public sporting events; and they can be married off by their fathers as soon as they turn twelve years old. Yet perhaps the most pervasive restriction is the requirement that all women cover their hair with hijabs whenever they are in public or “communal spaces” such as college dormitories. Since 1981, this law has been enforced by Iran’s Guidance Patrol, more commonly known as the “morality police”: a state-sanctioned law enforcement agency that’s primarily responsible for punishing violators of this particular law. Though the current uprising has blossomed into something much more, the spark that ignited this fire was this hijab requirement and the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of the morality police. Another slogan of the revolution – “Woman, Life, Liberty” – captures this trajectory, from a string of protests for women’s rights to the most formidable opposition movement in Iran since 1979.

Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian woman who went by her Kurdish name, Jhina, had come to Tehran for a brief family visit in mid-September. She had recently been admitted to a University and was shopping with family members on September 13^th when the morality police arrested her for wearing “tight trousers,”and her hijab “too loosely.” According to several eyewitness accounts that were relayed to Amini’s family, she was then violently beaten both in the police van and at the police station, where she slipped into a coma. Less than 72 hours later, she died in the hospital from what was undoubtedly head trauma, though Iranian authorities continue to insist it was the result of a mysterious and altogether unprecedented “heart attack.” Medical records obtained by a London-based news outlet corroborate that Amini had, in fact, suffered a skull fracture and cerebral hemorrhage, almost certainly incurred through blunt force, and that she showed no signs of cardiac arrest.

Striking several chords that were already at the forefront of the national political consciousness, news of Jhina’s death spread quickly across Iran. After all, she embodied so much of what was wrong throughout the country: she was a young, unassuming woman who had a promising future and no prior history in political advocacy, murdered for simply wearing her clothes as she wished. She was also a member of Iran’s Kurdish minority, which remains disenfranchised by a Persian government that has prioritized its own culture over other ethnicities’ since claiming power in 1979.

Yet Jhina’s identity wasn’t the only factor that tipped the scales – just one month before her death, Iran’s newly anointed President, Ebrahim Raisi, had announced the use of facial recognition on public transportation to identify women who did not properly don their headscarves, along with mandatory prison sentences for any Iranian citizen who openly questioned the government’s hijab policy. A severe disconnect between the government’s priorities and the beliefs of its people was becoming more clear than ever: the Iranian people were overwhelmingly opposed to hijab laws. While polls show at least 72% of Iranians think that women should have the right to not wear a hijab, the government has only imposed more stringent laws and brutal punishments since Raisi’s inauguration in 2021.

Within days of Jhina’s death protests were erupting across the country, from her native province of Kurdistan to the streets of Tehran, where she was originally detained. Images of women tearing off and burning their headscarves, along with crowds of schoolgirls taking off their hijabs while yelling “Death to the Dictator!” encapsulated a movement focused on the long-overdue liberation of Iranian women. However, over the ensuing weeks the protests have grown in scope to reflect so many of the issues plaguing the Iranian people: poor living conditions, religious fundamentalism, and political repression have all become vital touchpoints for a movement that spans several generations and ethnicities.

Each of these concerns has only been fueled by the government’s brutal response to the protests. The indiscriminate spraying of tear gas and firing of live rounds into crowds of peaceful protesters, including groups of college students, have only proven the revolution’s point – Iran is led by a fundamentalist, authoritarian regime that is interested in little else beyond its own retention of power. The police response has already killed at least 244 protesters, including 16-year-old women such as Nika Shakarami and Sarina Esmaildzadeh, who have joined Amini as posthumous revolutionary icons. Law enforcement has also detained over 12,500 protesters across the country, many of whom are missing to this day. Meanwhile, government representatives spread false rumors that the deaths of both Shakarami and Esmaeldsadeh were “suicides,” and that the protests are the direct result of a Western conspiracy intended to tear the country apart.

It should come as no surprise that the Iranian government is able to push these false narratives thanks to crackdowns on journalism and internet accessibility across the country. This is also perhaps the main reason we’ve heard so little about the ongoing rebellion. Countless journalists, both domestic and foreign, have been detained or disappeared during the protests, which has led to a mass exodus of foreign journalists who fear the same fate. Similarly, rolling internet shutdowns have stripped both the outside world and Iranians of any opportunity to follow what is happening in Iran. Social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Instagram, Skype, and LinkedIn are blocked throughout the country, along with a litany of apps that would give Iranians access to a connected internet. While some guerrilla outlets such as the 1500tasvir Instagram page manage to disseminate documentation of the rebellion and the brutal government response, scant information exists in regards to the ongoing state of the revolution.

Somehow, there is still a glimmer of hope amidst all of this: the uprising has spread to crucial domestic markets, including the oil industry and bazaars, where thousands of workers are on general strike until the Iranian government meets the protests’ demands. Such acts of solidarity demonstrate that the uprising has gained cultural and economic traction, and that brushing the whole movement aside won’t be as straightforward as it has been in the past for the Islamic Republic. Yet for many protesters, the time for reform has come and gone – having repeatedly responded to public dissent with the same systemic, deadly violence over the past two decades, the government has proven itself incapable of negotiation or reform. It must be dissolved and replaced with a more sound, conscientious government.

How can someone living in the United States help support the revolution from so far away? In this article from Truthout, various Iranians speak out about the flawed perception that the Iranian populace needs a direct intervention from a foreign power to support their needs. The article, however, does miss a key point when it claims that lifting the United States’ ongoing sanctions against Iran would help lift working class Iranians from the squalid conditions they’re facing. In fact, the opposite is true – choosing to resume trade with Iran in any capacity, including a nuclear deal, would only put more resources in the hands of the same regime that is apprehending and killing its own citizens. The Iranian people would not see a penny of those lifted sanctions, other than in the form of the barrel of the gun pointed directly at them.

Instead of lifting sanctions and providing more leverage to the oppressors, world leaders must further sanction all members of the Islamic regime in order to limit its resources. The US Secretary of State has already taken steps towards this end, but more can always be done. Iranians deserve to live with a sense of dignity and freedom – it is our responsibility, then, to shed as much light as we can on the nation’s current circumstance as it continues to unfold, and to demand that our government officials do whatever they can to isolate the Iranian regime. Though it may be hard to tell, the world is still watching.

SIGN: This “A Free Iran” letter to President Biden, which makes specific demands that could help liberate the Iranian people.

Read more

Heading to the polls this November? Mailing in your ballot? The midterm elections are fast approaching and the number of citizens voting might be impacted, particularly within minority populations. Unfortunately, there have been significant efforts to suppress voting rights across the country over the last few years, ranging from obstacles to voting by mail, new voter ID requirements, gerrymandering, and limitations on what officials can do to help promote voter access.

Voting rights have been protected since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 went into effect, prohibiting racial discimination in voting. It is considered to be one of the most effective pieces of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in America. The act contains numerous provisions that provide nationwide protections for elections, expanding on the 15th Amendment of 1870 which granted Black men the right to vote. The measure was strengthened and reaffirmed in 1970, 1975 and 1982. However, within the last 10 years, provisions of the Voting Rights Act have been struck down twice – in 2013, and most recently in 2021.

Voting suppression became rampant over the course of the last several major elections. This includes in Southern states such as Georgia, where current Democratic governor nominee Stacy Abrams witnessed the Secretary of State’s mismanagement of the midterm elections in 2018. Because of this, she launched the voting rights organization Fair Fight to help ensure everyone has a voice in our election system.

So what is happening now? There is one key court case that could determine the future of some provisions within the VRA. Experts agree that a Supreme Court pro-ruling in Alabama’s Merrill v. Milligan case regarding its proposed maps would essentially allow states to exempt themselves from the Voting Rights Act, which could be detrimental to voting access. As minority populations continue to grow nationwide, it makes sense that representation should also increase across the board. However, many state legislatures have done the exact opposite by drawing unfair maps; VRA Section 2’s protections against racial gerrymandering are the primary available recourse.

Thankfully, organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union are fighting to maintain our voting rights despite the efforts against them. Stay in the know on the ACLU’s work or donate to support their ongoing litigation and advocacy efforts.

If you haven’t registered yet, you still have time for the November 8th general midterm elections in some states! Get in the know on the latest voting rules, how to register, and more here.

Read more

The Inflation Reduction Act marks a major milestone in the effort to combat climate change across the country. By implementing more stringent taxes on wealthy corporations and earmarking billions in subsidies for the clean energy sector, the IRA addresses multiple social ills at once, from socioeconomic inequity to greenhouse gas emissions and poor air quality.

While we’ve heard so much about what it means for the country and the planet at large on a broader scale, we may not hear as much about the immediate impact the IRA will have on American citizens’ everyday lives. Here are just a few of the ways that the groundbreaking legislation could have an effect on your daily outlook in the coming years, if not sooner:

1. Pay Less at the Pump: In the spring and early summer, headlines were dominated by news of record-high gas prices across the country. Thanks to the war in Ukraine and supply chain disruptions, one of our most essential daily commodities had suddenly become a major source of financial strain and a driver of inflation. Environmental legislation that makes gasoline more affordable may sound like a paradox, but the IRA managed to do exactly that. By issuing hefty tax incentives for the purchase of Electric Vehicles (EVs) – up to $4,000 for used EVs and up to $7,500 for new ones – the legislation accelerates the adoption of a technology that might have otherwise been cost prohibitive for many, thus increasing access to cars that don’t depend on fossil fuels and reducing nationwide demand for gasoline.

Obviously, lowering gas prices doesn’t necessarily serve the environmental mission of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But as long as EVs remain outnumbered by gasoline-powered cars, it’s vital that working class people be able to afford the fuel they use to get from one place to another. With the passing of the IRA, a temporary reprieve from higher gas prices has already been a welcome development for millions of Americans.

2. Decreased Energy Bills: It’s no secret that low-income households across the country have struggled to keep up with their energy bills for years. No one should have to spend a large chunk of their income just to keep their home at a livable temperature, and the IRA is designed to mitigate this exact pressure that so many American families endure on a daily basis. A series of initiatives, including electric grid renovations and investment in clean energy, will collectively make household electricity more affordable, while other tax incentives give Americans the chance to reduce the amount of energy their own home consumes on a monthly basis.

Most of those tax incentives are targeted at low- or moderate-income homeowners who might not otherwise be able to pay upfront for energy-efficient technologies that would save them money in the long-term. With the passing of the IRA, sizable income-based rebates for heat pumps, electric wiring, and electric kitchen appliances can help people purchase the appliances they need to reduce their monthly energy consumption at home. A perfect synergy between environmental and economic progress is achieved – those most in need of economic support are receiving it, and the nation collectively reduces emissions, one household at a time.

On top of these itemized rebates, a 30% tax credit for more intensive energy-efficiency upgrades could motivate millions to maximize their home’s efficiency. Rooftop solar panel installations have already reached new heights of popularity with homeowners, and the instatement of this credit gives those who haven’t considered renewable energy for their home even more reason to purchase and install solar panels. Complementary services like full-home energy audits and battery storage also qualify for this tax credit, giving many families the chance to pay less for their monthly energy bill and drastically reducing their own carbon footprint.

3. Better Air Quality: Though it hasn’t received as much attention, the IRA also took major steps towards reducing airborne pollutants that have severe long-term health implications for millions. Already, one study asserts that the transition to green energy spurred by the IRA and the resultant improvements in air quality could prevent 3,900 premature deaths and 100,000 asthma attacks in the next eight years. These prevented ailments will be disproportionately found in poorer communities, whose close proximity to fossil fuel-burning power plants makes them vulnerable to severe but avoidable respiratory illnesses. With this, the IRA once again embodies the phrase “environmental justice” by advancing economic equality and environmental welfare in one fell swoop.

But airborne pollutants don’t just exist outside of the home – the household tax incentives will help families reduce airborne pollutants inside of their homes as well. Even when turned off, gas appliances can leak carcinogenic chemicals into the home, causing higher rates of asthma in children. By incentivizing a full transition to electric appliances, the IRA is helping to improve air quality both outside and inside, so that all people, regardless of class, have a better chance at leading a healthy life. We spend so much time discussing greenhouse gas emissions’ long-term impact on our lives through climate change – poor air quality, on the other hand, has immediate repercussions on those who can’t afford to avoid it. The IRA marks substantive progress in addressing both.

4. Lower Health Care Costs: If you find it strange that health care legislation is a major component of sweeping environmental reform, you’re not alone. But the IRA did include several sections that focus on keeping health care costs down for people who depend on Medicare, Medicaid, and Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance plans.

Subsidies for several ACA plans that were scheduled to expire at the end of 2022 were extended for three more years, giving approximately two million people the chance to keep their health care plans at their current rates.

Meanwhile, patients on Medicare and Medicaid will have an easier time affording the prescription drugs they need over the coming years, thanks to a number of initiatives: starting in 2026, the federal government will be able to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies for the first time in over 20 years;Medicare recipients' out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs will be reduced by an annual out-of-pocket medication spending cap of $2,000; Medicaid patients can no longer be charged any out-of-pocket cost for receiving a vaccine; and monthly insulin costs cannot exceed $35 for any Medicare or Medicaid patient.

Clearly, the IRA marks a major step towards attaining the worthy goals of environmental sustainability and economic equality. But meeting the emission reduction benchmarks set by the Biden administration in 2021 are by no means small tasks, and the IRA is in many respects only a start. In order to pass the Senate floor, this historic legislation did have to come with a number of caveats, including provisions that support the continued extraction and consumption of fossil fuels. Over the coming years, then, elected officials will need to pass more legislation to support environmental justice, while private companies will have to exceed their own emission reduction goals if the country is to fully combat climate change and support the Americans most vulnerable to its dangerous impacts

The IRA is estimated to reduce the US’s overall emissions to 60% of our 2005 emissions by 2030 – the Biden administration’s goal, set in 2021, was to bring emissions down to 50%. This sweeping legislation marks a major step towards that benchmark, to be sure, but more reform is urgently needed as we try to sustain life on this planet.

Read more

What is synonymous with the fall season? Pumpkin spice lattes (also known as PSLs), plaid, and boots might come to mind. However, something else one might think of is the color pink, which reflects the important annual campaign that takes over October: Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Many across the world take to the streets wearing every shade of pink imaginable to raise money for breast cancer research.

Breast cancer is characterized by abnormal cells that grow and invade healthy cells in the breast. It starts as a group of cells that can then invade surrounding tissue and metastasize to other areas of the body. It is a disease that affects more than 281,550 people each year, with more than 41,000 annual fatalities, according to the National Cancer Institute. Aside from skin cancer, breast is one of the most common cancers in American women. Yet even though so many are affected by the disease, death rates have been declining since the 1990s due to better screening, early detection, increased awareness, and better treatment options.

Screening and early detection includes doing monthly breast self-exams and scheduling regular clinical exams and mammograms. It’s important to be familiar with how your breasts look and feel, reporting any changes to your doctor. Annual mammograms should start at age 40, but possibly earlier if cancer runs in the family.

If you find yourself diagnosed with breast cancer, you might wonder what actually caused it. Unfortunately, no one knows the exact cause. What is known is that it is always caused by damage to a cell’s DNA. People can have certain risk factors of breast cancer that can be avoided (like drinking alcohol), while others can’t (such as having a family history of breast cancer).

Do you want to help others with breast cancer? Consider donating now or partnering with the National Breast Cancer Foundation, starting your very own fundraiser, or participating in a nearby Race for the Cure walk. Something else you can do is give a HOPE Kit to a loved one diagnosed with cancer, or help prepare or deliver kits locally.

Let’s help end breast cancer together!

By Lauren James Budhu

Read more

What happens when something like the right to an abortion is stripped away? In America, we are seeing this phenomenon first hand across many states. It’s all because the 1973 landmark decision, Roe v. Wade, was overturned by the Supreme Court on June 24, 2022.

The original case was brought by Norma McCorvey, known by the legal pseudonym “Jane Roe,” nearly 50 years ago. She became pregnant with her third child and wanted an abortion. Yet McCorvey lived in Texas, where it was illegal to get the procedure unless it was medically necessary. She filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court saying it was unconstitutional– the Supreme Court then ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provided a fundamental “right to privacy,” which protected a pregnant woman’s right to an abortion.

Over the years, Roe v. Wade has remained controversial and been contested numerous times. This year, the court overruled Roe v. Wade via the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, on the grounds that the right to an abortion was “not deeply rooted in this nation’s history or tradition,” nor considered a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868.

Because of this ruling, states can now establish their own laws on abortion. Many states, including Texas and my home state of Arkansas, had trigger laws, which immediately banned abortion once Roe was struck down. Other states, such as Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee, have enforced six-week bans while Florida has enforced a 15-week ban. Kentucky, Louisiana, and Utah have also passed abortion bans, but they have been blocked in court and are awaiting hearings. Unfortunately, this is just the beginning of this movement, and legal professors believe that more states will pass laws banning abortion.

These bans have prompted more patients to travel to other states where abortion is still legal. Access to birth control has also become a concern, and more women are even requesting sterilization over concerns that their current birth control methods will fail and they won’t be able to get an abortion.

Many might feel helpless after this substantial ruling that will affect so many people. Yet there are some things we can do to make an impact in abortion rights, such as:

1. Donate money to abortion funds. Help people pay for abortion care or travel expenses to get it– send money to  a local provider or donate to the National Network of Abortion Funds.
2. Vote. It might be tiring to hear this over and over, but this moment is an example of how voting matters. Head to the polls to vote at all levels of government officials who are willing to fight for abortion access. Research where your current congressional representatives and state legislature reps stand on abortion, and cast your vote in midterm and general elections for a candidate who will fight to protect this right.
3. Reach out to your elected officials right now. Make a point to reach out to your state representatives by phone, email or mail– it can make an impact on state laws that will determine the legality of abortion across the country.
4. Get involved in protests. Protests are happening all over the country and will likely continue for months. It’s important to mobilize and band together; protesting demonstrates the extreme gravity of this situation. If you decide to protest, just protect yourself and know your rights in case of police presence!
5. Follow advocacy groups on social media. Following abortion-activism groups on social media is a great way to educate yourself and stay up-to-date on the latest news. Groups like the Guttmacher Institute, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, and Still We Rise focus on advocating for abortion rights, spreading facts and research. Following these groups is also a good way to learn about protest opportunities.

Check out more ways to get involved and help support abortion access.

Read more

How “Green-washing” Demands a New Climate Activism

By now, most conscientious consumers are attuned to the use of pink ribbons in marketing to highlight companies’ support for breast cancer-related foundations or charities. Also known as “pink-washing,” it’s in many cases a benign enough display that does route money to a good cause, but in others it screams of hypocrisy: corporations producing carcinogenic chemicals, for instance, have appropriated the symbol to get an edge, distracting from products that cause the very disease the company claims to be “fighting.” Associated with a cause that no one could reasonably object to and protected by the pink ribbon’s uplifting visage, corporations have for years used pink-washing as an effective platform for their bottom line. The reason they’re so freely able to eschew criticism, of course, is that many of us don’t research or care enough to realize how twisted the use of such a symbol may be. Their logo flashes by on the TV screen with a pink varnish – sometimes a ribbon, other times just a pink hue – and people hardly bat an eye. Who, after all, could object to funding breast cancer research?

Over the years, the model of pink-washing as a clever PR tactic has been applied to many political spheres. As the effects of climate change, for instance, become more undeniable with each passing heat wave, hurricane and extinction, environmental causes – and corporations’ support for them – have started to take on a similar sheen. The days when global warming was up for debate are long gone, and consumers, in turn, are expecting more accountability out of the companies they support. To be sure, the point here is not to deny the existence of for-profit companies that make a real effort to solve the climate crisis – those companies exist, and they are essential in the fight to save our planet. Yet those companies, regrettably, are often overshadowed by others who have adopted environmentalism as their “cause” without doing much to substantively support it. Just as pink-washing subliminally placates consumers, green-washing is meant to convince us that our purchasing decisions are not contributing – and, in some instances, are counteracting – the climate crisis when often this message could not be further from the truth.

Of course, none of this is a new idea: companies have used terms like “green” and “sustainable” to promote products or services for decades, even when many of those same companies were making no real effort to minimize their environmental impact. The use of natural imagery is more often used to draw attention away from what companies are doing, not towards it. Today, this initiative has transmogrified into a new series of buzzwords like “carbon offset” and “net-zero” that are touted by large corporations as the next great solution to a crisis that they continue to literally fuel. Even as they reach record levels of carbon emissions, airlines and petroleum companies are releasing climate pledges that tout a commitment to ecological welfare and carbon neutrality. But just like the pink ribbons that have been pinned on corporate causes for years, this new trend comes with a great deal of fine print, and arguably only deepens the very crisis it purports to solve. In a perverse but predictable twist, the widespread use of terms like “Net Zero” is undermining – not advancing – climate action.

This doesn’t mean, though, that hope is lost. Instead of resigning ourselves and wishing for the best possible outcome, let’s actively draw attention to all corporate practices that capitalize on environmental causes without contributing to them. Instead of rolling out clever PR stunts and calling it a day, large companies should make real, substantive changes to their environmental missions. So here are the three most glaring flaws that appear in several corporations’ “climate pledges,” along with some thoughts on how you can use your dollar to encourage meaningful action:

1. Most climate pledges kick the can down the road: At this point, most large corporations – ExxonMobil and DOW Chemical, for example – have published climate pledges that promise to achieve carbon neutrality by a specific year. Setting aside the fact that “carbon neutrality” is a nebulous and easily manipulated phrase, what’s most striking about these pledges is that almost none of them says anything about the immediate future. Instead, they allude to an abstract goal that their respective authors will reach in the distant future – typically sometime between 2030 and 2050 – when they’ll supposedly have adopted more sustainable practices. In the meantime, though, those corporations are free to continue polluting the planet and even increasing their carbon emissions as they display their lofty pledges about carbon neutrality on their website’s front page.

2. Many “Net Zero” pledges don’t even account for the majority of a company’s emissions: Even if a company claims it will achieve net zero carbon emissions by a given date, there’s still a good chance they’re not giving consumers a full picture. When petroleum companies pledge to achieve carbon neutrality in the next 30 years, for example, they’re typically only referring to the emissions that come from the oil extraction and distribution processes, and not the emissions produced when their petroleum is used. As a result, many of these pledges are not only abstract in nature, they’re also fundamentally hollow. If a corporate manufacturer of assault weapons claimed to have some of the best working conditions in the country, would we no longer try to hold that company accountable for its role in America’s gun crisis because they actually treat their workers pretty well? Of course not.

Surely the same idea applies here. Chemical and petroleum companies whose products cause climate change must also account for the impact of the commodities they sell – a “net zero” pledge that obscures those emissions misses the point entirely. There are so many technicalities and loopholes like this that companies can (and do) exploit in their pledges – whenever this happens, it’s our job to read between the lines and call them out.

3. Carbon offsetting programs are hard to measure: Most of the systems that we use to counteract our emissions are still very new and extremely difficult to measure with much confidence or objectivity. So while all reforestation programs, for instance, do offset carbon emissions to some extent by capturing Carbon Dioxide and converting it into Oxygen, most fail to actually track the development of the trees they plant, and therefore only work with vague approximations of how much carbon dioxide their work is actually pulling out of the atmosphere. As long as large companies are relying on poorly tracked initiatives to “offset” their carbon, it’s hard for us to take their word at face value – an estimated carbon offset, for example, may rely on the assumption that all trees planted on a plot of land grow to a state of maturity, when in fact, only one in two that were originally planted (or less) may actually make it to that point.

There’s truth to the idea that knowledge is power. With this knowledge, we have the tools we need to hold companies accountable to their pledges. In the meantime, we can support those organizations – nonprofit and for-profit alike – that are actually making a real effort to offset emissions, actively reducing their carbon emissions now, and/or committing in a material way to demonstrably sustainable practices. Words are important, but without action to prove their authenticity, they’re just that – words. It’s our responsibility to help turn them into realities.

Read more

When you hear the classic song “America the Beautiful,” what do you think of? Do you think of “amber waves of grain,” or, “purple mountain majesties”? Or what about “from sea to shining sea”?

Whatever lyric you think about, there is no doubt that the patriotic song by Katharine Lee Bates perfectly encapsulates the majestic lands that extend from the four corners of the United States and beyond. One of the main ways that we are able to bask in the beauty of our country is through our park system. The United States is filled with local, state and national parks, many of which are free to the public.

In 1916, the National Park Service, the organization that oversees all of America’s national parks, was born out of the Organic Act signed by President Woodrow Wilson. Before that, our rich history of national parks began in 1864 when President Abraham Lincoln signed the Yosemite Land Act. This Act was aimed to protect the beautiful northern landscape of California that would later become Yosemite National Park.

Unfortunately, over the years, litter has inundated our beautiful protected lands, skyrocketing since the pandemic shut everything down in 2020 when the number of visitors grew tenfold. In fact, the National Park Service now manages more than 100 million pounds of waste from visitors and park operations every year, according to the article “The Trash Problem at National Parks.” That’s enough to fill the Statue of Liberty more than 1,800 times! This growing trash problem could prove threatening to plant and animal populations that are already endangered. It’s a larger mess than some parks are able to handle; for instance, the eight national parks in Alaska face a host of logistical problems with recycling and composting because of its remoteness. In places like the Rocky Mountain National Park, bears are sometimes killed to protect visitors because of food-driven aggression from leftover human food.

Luckily, teams at numerous national parks such as Yosemite have enacted major recycling programs and composting programs to combat the growing waste problem. Additionally, due to large amounts of plastic waste, numerous parks have installed water refill stations.

Want to make a difference and reduce your footprint? Before heading to your favorite park:

● Check the park’s website for more information on their recycling and composting programs so you know how to properly dispose of your trash

● Reduce single use plastics by bringing a reusable water bottle and snack containers to refill at the park

● Buy and use biodegradable soaps, shampoos, and toiletries when camping

● Always pick up after yourself; if you can, take your trash and recyclables back home with you

Be part of the solution. On the upcoming Carl Garner Federal Lands Cleanup Day on September 10th, pull a group together, grab a bag and pick up trash at your nearby park. Let’s take good care of our national treasures!

Read more

Did you know that breast milk has always held great cultural significance? The ancient Greeks believed that the Milky Way galaxy was formed by goddess Hera’s breast milk. This “liquid gold,” as people call it, is being celebrated all month-long in August during National Breastfeeding Month.

While there has always been a strong debate about breastfeeding, it’s important to note there are many health benefits. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), universal breastfeeding could save about 820,000 infant lives a year.

As a new mom of two, breastfeeding has been a huge part of my life over the last two years; I had my daughter in August 2020, and recently had my son in April this year. I have had the great fortune of being able to work from home and care for them, giving me ample flexibility to nurse and pump around the clock. However, when I began my breastfeeding journey I was terrified about what it entailed, and how I could succeed in feeding my daughter day-in and day-out through nursing and pumping. Fortunately, I powered through and was able to breastfeed until she turned 16 months. Now, I am bottle feeding my son breast milk through pumping with occasional nursing. Through support from nurses, family, work and other moms through groups like FIT4MOM and the local La Leche League, I’ve become more confident in how I’ve been able to feed my children. As the saying goes: “it takes a village.”

That’s why National Breastfeeding Month is so important to me! Here are some things you can do to observe it as well:

1. Be an advocate for breastfeeding moms. Work with local groups on federal legislation to support mothers. This includes regulations on paid maternity leave, building codes to require sanitary areas for moms to breastfeed, and more public health information on the importance of breastfeeding.
2. Show gratitude. Whether it’s your sister, friend or a co-worker, take some time to fist bump someone who is helping give their child a healthy start. Consider donating to the La Leche League International or the U.S. Breastfeeding Committee, two big organizations that support breastfeeding mothers across the world.

Why is National Breastfeeding Month important as a whole? First of all, breastfeeding is good for both mom and baby. Most doctors and health organizations recommend breast milk as the best possible food for an infant in the first six months of their life– it contains loads of incredible nutrients, antibodies, and good bacteria, giving babies a boost to their immune and digestive systems.

Second, breast milk helps provide a lifetime of good health. Studies have shown a significant correlation with breast milk and higher intelligence, as well as a lower risk of chronic diseases; this is mainly due to antibodies that are not found in formula.

Lastly, breastfeeding is convenient and inexpensive. The good thing is mothers can nurse anytime, anywhere. It’s significantly less expensive than a year’s worth of formula.

Breastfeeding is not easy– it takes almost as much time as a full-time job to feed an infant, and can be physically draining. It takes a lot to maintain your milk supply and receive all the support you need to continue your journey. Ultimately, “fed is best”; however moms are able to feed their little ones deserves support and recognition from those around them.

Here’s to happy, healthy kids! 

Read more