Texas’ new abortion law, banning abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy, went into effect on September 1, 2021. There has been a great backlash to this, and as a result, has sent numerous desperate women across state lines searching for abortion clinics. In an article by CBS News, an anonymous patient describes her recent experience trying to get to a Colorado abortion clinic. She had found out about her pregnancy the day before Texas’ law went into effect and due to health reasons, the pregnancy was too risky. In a panic, she had to scramble not only to find the money for the procedure, but she now also had to figure out how to get to another state in order to get the procedure done. This is just one example of the many traumatizing experiences women are forced to face due to the extremely restrictive abortion laws that exist.
There has been great backlash to the Texas law. As a result, the House Democrats quickly took action by developing legislation that would thwart Texas’ efforts to restrict abortion rights. More specifically, it protects a woman’s right to an abortion until fetal viability, which is when a fetus can live outside a womb, generally falling between 21 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. It includes exceptions for post-fetal viability abortions if the healthcare provider believes that the pregnancy poses a health risk to the mother. The legislation also grants easy access to abortions and eliminates the requirements for procedures that are ultimately put in place to delay abortions.
This bill was initially introduced in 2013 by Democratic Rep. Judy Chu of California, and subsequently introduced to Congress for four years. However, it never received a vote in committee. This past Friday the bill passed in Congress by a 218-211 vote, along party lines. This is a victory for reproductive-rights advocates. The bill will most likely die in the Senate, since the Senate is split and a majority will be difficult to reach. Nonetheless, House Democrats felt it was important to develop the legislation in effort to create talking points for 2022 elections and in hopes of gaining support for their pro-choice beliefs. Additionally, President Joe Biden has extended his support for this bill, bringing this issue to the top of the Democratic political agenda.
Public opinion on abortions has fluctuated throughout the past couple of decades, but as of 2021, a slim majority of Americans believe that abortions should be legal in most cases. Further, the Monmouth University Polling Institute states, 54% of the public disagrees with the Supreme Court allowing Texas’ restrictive abortion ban (mostly democrats). It seems that the American public has always been a close fifty-fifty split when it comes to abortion. Fewer Americans believe that abortions should be banned in ALL cases, but still believe in tight restrictions to them. The pro-choice/pro-life debate has been a hot topic since before the Supreme Courts Roe v. Wade decision in 2008, which protects a woman’s right to abortions nationwide.
“Every day women in our country face deeply personal decisions of whether to continue their pregnancies, they should be able to make their own decisions, free from politicians interference. The Women’s Health Protection Act is exactly that,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo. Although disheartening, Texas’ restrictions on abortions may just be the catalyst pro-choice advocates need to gain support in the 2022 elections. Reproductive rights have been on the backburner of the Democratic agenda for many years, but thanks to the ban, it seems to have been revived and brought to the forefront, with the ultimate goal of codifying Roe v. Wade once and for all.
Questions:
Do you think this new bill should be passed? What are the pros and cons?
How do you think the government should attack the issue of women’s reproductive rights?
Psychedelic mushrooms, also known as psilocybin, are at the center of discussion among California legislators. The hallucinogenic drug is widely criminalized across the United States, but there are some exceptions such as Oregon, Denver (Colorado), and Oakland (California). Other psychedelic drugs include mescaline, LSD, and MDMA (ecstasy), which the legalities of are also being debated in politics. A drug legalization movement began with marijuana and is now extending to psychedelic drugs with psilocybin being a major focus. Supporters of the legalization movement are hoping that San Francisco and San Mateo County senator Scott Wiener's proposed legislation gets passed. This legislation would allow adults over the age of 21 to possess psychedelic mushrooms legally. However, it does not mention the sale of psychedelic drugs, for selling psychedelic drugs is still a felony.
Wiener's law, also known as SB-519, focuses on the medical benefits of legalizing psychedelic drugs rather than the recreational aspects of the drugs. On a recent KQED broadcast, he noted that "It's hard to describe just how destructive the war on drugs has been." The Senate Bill was in fact passed by the California Senate in June, but Wiener decided to halt its progress by moving it to a "'suspense file'" on August 26. In an article written by NBC writer Dennis Romero on September 18th, he noted that the proposal to decriminalize possession of psilocybin mushrooms was approved for signature gathering by the state attorney general. The goal is to have the proposition on the 2022 ballot, although it will be difficult due to the amount of fundraising needed to get enough signatures.
Senator Wiener talking at a California state senate meeting in June 2018
According to Ismail L. Ali, who helps operate the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, "We are in an early and sensitive phase in the process, and much remains to be seen in how different states navigate the emerging policy landscape." Navigation of the "policy landscape" may be difficult given that psilocybin is a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance under Federal legislation. This basically means that the drug is supposedly highly abused, is not used in the medical field, and is not currently safe to use even under medical supervision.
Interestingly enough, studies have shown that shrooms could be monumental in the treatment of severe post traumatic stress disorder, depression, and substance abuse. According to Paul Tillis from Nature, a study published in November 2020 conveyed that 71% of people who took psilocybin for depression showed over a 50% reduction in symptoms after four weeks. Moreover, half of the participants entered remission. In addition to the treatment of mental disorders, clinical trials suggest that when used in moderation psychedelic drugs can trigger positive introspection and positive changes to one's behavior. According to Doctor Robert Grant from the Neuroscape Psychedelic Branch at UCSF, "...psilocybin and LSD also invoke self-like qualities... depending on the dose and setting." Moreover, the psychotic effects of psychedelic mushrooms are suggested by some to be liberating. One can let go of their predefined notions of self and can gain new perspectives free of compulsive and unwanted thoughts.
Although there are medical benefits to the legalization of psilocybin, there are also many dangers that could result from widespread use of the drug. Some physical side effects of the drug include nausea, vomiting, muscle weakness, and ataxia. The psychological effects of the drug are its hallmark trait but can also be debilitating. This includes hallucinations, paranoia, and an inability to distinguish fantasy from reality (psychosis). Although disproven in a dated article from the Scientific American published in 2015 (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-link-found-between-psychedelics-and-psychosis1/), the general public fears a link between psychedelic drugs and psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. Another common concern regarding psilocybin is that people will not take the appropriate dosage, which could lead to overdoses and even death.
Despite the uncertainty over the safety of psychedelic mushrooms, it is general consensus that California is becoming a more drug friendly state. This is given that marijuana was legalized as a medicinal drug in 1996 with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. California was also the first state to legalize medical cannabis, which comes as no surprise as it could soon become the second state to legalize the medical use of psilocybin after Oregon.
Questions:
Do you think shrooms should be legalized for medical use only, for both medical use and recreational use, or for neither? Why?
There are many drugs that are harmful to the user themself, but not harmful to others (some notable exceptions would be PCP and Methamphetamine, although most drugs can be somehow be harmful to others). Is there any good reason to criminalize possession of those drugs for adults if they can make rational decisions for themselves?
Heavily blue states such as California and Oregon have been the most proactive in legalizing previously criminalized drugs such as cannabis. Why would "blue" states be more open to legalizing drugs as opposed to "red" states? Explain.
Biden Administration Deporting Haitians in South Texas
During Biden’s presidential campaign, he criticized Trump’s deportation system and preached his devotion to bettering the circumstances for illegal immigrants fleeing to America. On the Biden Harris campaign website, it reads, “Generations of immigrants have come to this country with little more than the clothes on their backs, the hope in their heart, and a desire to claim their own piece of the American Dream… Under a Biden Administration, we will never turn our backs on who we are or that which makes us uniquely and proudly American.” Recently, Human Rights activists and Democratic lawmakers have questioned Biden’s commitment to his previous incentive. With the influx of Haitian refugees arriving at Texas’ southern border, the Biden administration has seemingly forgotten its promise to “never turn [its] back'' on immigrants and instead has begun to organize their mass deportation. Haitians have been fleeing to America in large numbers for years, but in the past few months, this number has risen significantly. With Haiti’s past president recently assassinated and a 7.2 magnitude earthquake killing thousands, Haiti’s economy, public health safety, and political legitimacy are becoming worse. Hence why over 14,000 refugees have escaped to the Del Rio camp in Southern Texas: this number increasing daily.
Because conducting foreign affairs is an enumerated federal power, the Biden administration has taken charge of the immigration issue. They have been conducting deportation flights since August, with only a brief pause for when Haiti’s destructive earthquake initially struck. Flights have resumed since, and Biden plans on beginning his new, more rapid deportation system as soon as September 19. This consists of potentially up to eight flights of refugees out of Texas per day. Although the exact number is undetermined, the U.S. is currently willing to send as many flights as Haiti will accept, highlighting the Biden administration’s eagerness to send back these asylum-seeking refugees. Hundreds of Border Patrol agents are also being sent to control the area where the migrants are currently settling.
Right now, the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is at its all-time high as compared to the past two decades. Marsha Espinosa, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, claims that “Irregular migration poses a significant threat to the health and welfare of border communities and to the lives of migrants themselves and should not be attempted” (The Washington Post). Because of these reasons, the Biden administration justifies its rapid deportation strategy and hopes that it will deter future refugees from making their way to the United States. While Democrats are fighting against this border policy for being too strict, Republican Congress members are criticizing it for being too loose. Finally, the Biden administration promised to end Trump’s restrictive policies on asylum-seekers, one of which being the “Remain-in-Mexico” policy. This is a system in which asylum-seekers shelter in Mexico as their American asylum status is pending. However, this often risks their health and/or leaves them in unsafe circumstances. Biden, who originally halted this program at the beginning of his presidency, is now looking to reinstate it.
Overall, I stand against the Biden administration’s decisions in this situation. After promising to fight for asylum-seekers human rights, the administration has not stuck to its word. Although they want to decrease the influx of refugees crossing the border, they cannot simply deny them their right to seek asylum and safety in America. Instead, they are being sent back to a place of violence and civil unrest, ignoring these refugees' safety.
Questions:
How do you think Biden's team should deal with the Haitian refugees?
Do you think that the Biden administration is justified in its actions?
San Francisco Mayor London Breed broke the rules of her own mask mandate after partying maskless at a jazz club last week. According to San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Mayor partied with friends at the Black Cat Jazz club in San Francisco. Not only did she eat and drink inside with other people, but refrained from putting her mask back on after eating. According to the San Francisco Department of Public Health, one can take off their mask indoors only if they are in a private office, personal vehicle, or are actively eating or drinking. Vaccination status may be relevant to one being able to get into a business or restaurant, but is completely irrelevant with regard to the mask mandate. According to Breed, "My drink was sitting at the table. I got up and started dancing because I was feeling the spirit and wasn't thinking about a mask...I was thinking about having a good time and in the process I was following the health orders." According to the San Francisco Department of Public Health, however, she was not following the health orders. Moreover, nobody else in the jazz club appeared to be wearing a mask (eating or not eating). After fully supporting the most recent mask mandate back in August (https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-san-francisco-san-francisco-bay-ebf8dc7e45668a3297454cd64063d871), Breed continued on to say that her and everyone else at the club "don't need the fun police to come in and micromanage and tell us what we should or shouldn't be doing."
Mayor London Breed (top left) seen at the jazz club.
The behavior demonstrated by London Breed is a common scenario where a politician goes against their own policy in their private life. Hypocrisy is frustrating, but inevitable. However, the fact that Breed risked being caught breaking her own city's mask mandates begs the question: what is the constitutionality of mask mandates and how are federal mask mandates, state mask mandates, and local mask mandates interconnected? Because there is not one political body deciding the mask mandate (federalism is the idea that government is a combination of state and national governments), there are a lot of factors at play when it comes to the enforcement of mask mandates. Firstly, a "mandate" is usually defined as a requirement that orders state and local governments to expand or implement services. If those services are not properly implemented, the national government will somehow penalize the state or locality or just withhold the grant money. Although only the national government can enact official mandates, grant money and all, local school districts have created mask mandates to ensure that students wear masks in school.
San Francisco Mayor London Breed responds to criticism of her not wearing a mask while inside the Black Cat Jazz Club in San Francisco.
On the other side of the country, Florida governor Ron DeSantis recently made an executive order to ban all school districts from enforcing mask mandates with the threat of withholding state funds. He claimed that school mask mandates went against the state's constitution that gave parents the right to make healthcare decisions for their children. DeSantis' reference to the state constitution is a reminder of the issues that the Articles of Confederation caused in the 1780s. Because the AOC established a weak national government, many states resorted to their state constitutions to enact legislation. State power was at an all time high, and limitations on the central government (no strong military) meant that they could not effectively respond to middle class uprisings. The establishment of a loose collection of sovereign states was criticized, and resulted in the popularization of Federalism. In short, the U.S. would not have survived well as a loose confederation of sovereignties given that it would lead to recessions from the country. Moreover, during the pandemic, a lack of a strong central government meant that states would take health matters into their own hands. This would most likely have led to many more deaths as states would not have had as much influence from the national government to extend mask mandates and implement stay at home orders.
Seven day avg. of new Covid-19 cases in S.F. county, according
to the San Francisco Department of Public Health
So, which mask mandate, federal, state, or local, takes precedence over the other two? Ultimately, the state mandate takes precedence over the other two, but local mask mandates seem to be the most obeyed. Although there is no federal law regarding mask mandates, the executive branch has the power to prevent the introduction and transmission of disease from foreign countries into the states or between states. Also, via the Commerce Clause, the national government can affect mask mandates by regulating interstate business. Although both public health laws and the Commerce Laws enable the national government to create mask mandates, national mask mandates have not applied well to the states. The tenth amendment's "anti-commandeering provision" prevents the federal government from forcing state officers to enforce federal commands. Although the tenth amendment does not give states powers superior to that of the national government for anything not written in the constitution, "all powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"(10th amendment of the Constitution). Also, the case McCulloch vs. Maryland established the superiority of the national governments over state governments overall. All in all, the "anti-commandeering provision" proves that the state mask mandates take precedence over the federal mandates. Although people have argued that state mask mandates violate the First Amendment, especially with regard to religious activities, most backlash has been unsupported by federal courts and the general public. And masks are in fact constitutional as any mandate can be implemented by local governments they are in the best interest of the public. With local school districts, there is growing support that they can implement their own mask mandates against state executive order if the order violates people's "public safety guarantees."
The constitutionality of mask mandates, asdescribed by The Washington Post
The battle between federal, state, and local governments over Covid-19 mask mandates seems to be never-ending because of the many nuances to state and federal constitutions. Different laws seem to be contradicting, and there are strong arguments to be made for each tier of government to have power over the other two with regard to Covid-19. Although it is arguable which tier of government's mask mandates takes precedence, what isn't arguable is that local mask mandates are the most obeyed. The simple reason is that people tend to follow rules that apply to their local community because those rules are designed specifically for their demographic, culture, and population. Moreover, one is more likely to follow a mask mandate if it is articulated and enforced by their own schoolteachers who see them seven hours a day as opposed to a distant group of higher-ups in Washington D.C. The reason federal mask mandates are so difficult to enforce is that law enforcement would literally have to scope out every single person not wearing a mask (or wearing a mask improperly) when inside and not eating. Given the scope of the country and breadth of people not obeying mask mandates exactly as they are detailed, effectively enforcing federal mask mandates would be a gargantuan task. London Breed's behavior is a unique situation where someone who supported their own city's mask mandate blatantly disregards it to "feel the spirit." It is not proof that local mask mandates are wholly ineffective, but is a reminder that politicians are just as human and flawed as any other American citizen.
Analysis Questions:
1) In general, is it important that politicians personally follow the legislation that they help pass or support in the public eye? What message is sent when Mayor Breed defies her own city's mask mandate?
2) If you could decide which tier of government has superiority over the other with regard to Covid-19 related mandates and legislation, which would you choose? (example: states first, national gov. second, localities third, because...)
3) What is the relationship between Federalism and Covid-19? I know hypotheticals are dangerous, but would the country have dealt with the pandemic better if the governmental system was closer to dual federalism rather than cooperative federalism?
**careful
4) Are mask mandates constitutional? Regardless, are they more of a formality at this point given most people's access to vaccines or are they still imperative tools to stopping the spread of Covid-19? GO!
The Sequoia National Park is put in danger after the Colony and Paradise Fires sparked by lightning are spreading rapidly. The fire increased on Saturday because of the wind speed rising and the smoke inversion lifting, allowing the sun to heat up the vegetation. With all this combined, it led the National Weather Serviced to claim that there were critical fire conditions in the Sequoia National Park where thousands of giant sequoias reside. The fire has spread to one grove of sequoias; however, officials are unable to determine the multitude of damage as the area is remote and hard to reach. This fire is especially concerning considering that the Castle fire that occurred last year killed an estimated 10%-14% of the sequoias in the world. As of right now, the fire has 0% containment and the fire has grown to about 21,777 acres.
Although these fires are persistent, sequoias have adapted to fires. When their cones are exposed to a gust of heat, they release seeds, allowing for seedlings to be distributed. Moreover, their bark is thick and even if 95% of their crown is scorched, they could still live. However, if fires are hot enough, the sequoias are exposed to a possibility of burning. Furthermore, with the drought stressing the trees, it is harder for them to battle the high-intensity fires caused by climate change and dry vegetation. For this reason, the trees have been wrapped in aluminum foil that is fire and heat resistant, giving some protection to the trees. This foil can also be used for buildings, allowing the prevention of airborne embers from fires from entering homes through vents and various openings.
Although homes can somewhat be protected by his foil, there was a forced evacuation and officials are bulldozing a line between the fire and the community. Firefighters thought about burning duff around the trees as the technique has been used for many years to stop wildfires from burning more wildlife. However, the Forest Service has had difficulties with limited resources and small-time windows to conduct the burns due to “rising temperatures, dwindling precipitation and long, more active fires seasons” (Wigglesworth).
With an increase in wildfires in California, it is important to understand what can be done to help prevent more. Philip Higuera, Elizabeth Dodson, Alexander Metcalf, and Solomon Dobrowski from the Washington Post have various solutions that they think should be implemented. They suggest that prescribed fires and cutting down trees are a great way to remove dead vegetation and prevent fires as it removes fuel of many fires. Additionally, they add that the cutting down of trees also benefits the economy as it creates jobs and provides materials. They also suggest the reconsideration of how we build and develop. For example, power lines that are damaged could cause fires which could kill a lot of wildlife. Furthermore, they emphasize that leaders must take action, and forest management near vulnerable communities should be more well funded. Tom Corringham, Rosana Aguilera, and Janin Guzman-Morales from The Hill wrote something similar, however, also articulated that for high-risk populations, masks and filtration systems should be given. Moreover, they also state that there should be a clear and defensible space surrounding homes to protect them and also diminish risks to firefighters. Both articles emphasized that Climate change was the most prominent problem that everyone should address, claiming that a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is key to prevent global warming.
With an increase in wildfires in California, it only puts more national parks and wildlife at threat. While climate change is a large issue to tackle, if everyone plays their part by reducing their carbon footprint and living more sustainably (even if it is in a small way), we could start to make tangible change. The fires surround the giant Sequoias is saddening and unfortunate as it provides not only aesthetics of a national park, but a habitat to lots of wildlife.
Questions:
What can the federal or state government do to better implement climate change solutions and policies?
How have the California fires affected you or someone you know? What were their suggestions on battling this crisis?
How can the California State government provide more aid for victims?
In April, Biden uses his power to command the armed forces and called for the U.S. military to be removed from Afghanistan, leaving many with mixed feelings. Daniel Depertris, from News Week, thought it would be a good idea to leave Afghanistan as they would no longer have to bear the weight of upholding the safety of other countries such as China, Russia, and Iran, all while receiving blame. Depertris also mentions that the troubles of Afghanistan will no longer have to be put on America. Ian Bremmer from Time Magazine also thought that leaving was the right thing to do, however, for different reasons. He states that the war would ultimately be unwinnable, and when the U.S. inevitably would pull out, the Taliban would take over. In addition, many troops and civilians would continue to be harmed if they didn’t pull out. Both agreed that for the Afghanistan civilians, it would be tragic and violent as the power returns to the Taliban.
This thought, prominent in both articles, was shown today after an investigation of the August 29th airstrike on a suspected ISIS-K-related vehicle concluded that 10 civilians were killed, 7 being children. The suspected vehicle was followed for 8 hours and was said to have a driver loading jugs and other materials into the car. The normal investigation of intelligence normally would take days, weeks, and sometimes months, according to ABC news. However, because of the time pressure and the possibility of both evacuees and U.S. troops being harmed, the military chose to strike under “reasonable certainty” (CNN). The suicide bombing killing 100 civilians and 13 U.S. service members that took place only three days before could have also been an extra push to go through with the strike as Biden stated that “we [would] hunt [them] down and make [them] pay.”
After the strike had taken place, it was seen as righteous, as the military thought that they had killed at least one ISIS-K member and only 3 civilians. They also had seen a significant explosion after the airstrike, making many believe that the vehicle had explosives. We would later find out that there was actually a propane gas tank next to the vehicle that caused this flare-up.
General Frank McKenzie offered his apology claiming the strike was a mistake and a tragic outcome. He also made sure to make clear that this is not how the military would normally pursue a counterterrorism mission, and that they would look more into the target for later missions.
This mistake has caused some doubts about America’s counterterrorism efforts. For example, Chairman Adam Schiff mentions that it is important that we know what happened leading up to the strike as it could help prevent something like this from happening again. Amnesty International, a human rights organization, said that the military acknowledging and being clear is an “important step toward accountability,” but also mentions that they need to take more steps, which could include paying family members and survivors reparations.
The U.S. has been fighting in the Afghanistan war for many years, using an influx of money and causing many casualties. However, by leaving Afghanistan it would leave the Taliban in control leaving civilians deprived of human rights, especially women. I agree with both Depitris and Bremmer that civilians’ lives and human rights are on the line with the Taliban taking over. For this reason, it is important for the U.S. to make sure that they are thorough with their investigations to make sure that we are not contributing even more to their risk. The casualties of this airstrike were truly tragic, and I can only hope that we are able to use more time to investigate intelligence and help civilians rather than put them in more harm.
Last year’s pandemic impacted the entire country’s economy, leading to widespread job losses as well as lower participation in the general economy. Although it could have led to the largest poverty rates America has ever seen, because of government aid provided all throughout last year, the United States Census Bureau reported that the supplemental poverty measure actually decreased to the lowest figure since 1967.
While the supplemental poverty measure was 9.1 percent of the U.S population, the official poverty measure actually increased to about 11.4 percent in 2020. The difference between the two measures according to the United States Census Bureau is that “the official poverty measure is based on cash resources[, while] the supplemental poverty measure uses cash resources and also includes non-cash benefits and subtracts necessary expenses (such as taxes and medical expenses)” (USCB). Essentially, by the definition of poverty in America, the poverty rate bumped to 37.2 million (3.2 million greater than 2019). However, this number does not show the impact of the government programs, which include housing and food assistance, tax credits, and the checks sent directly to households that were considered as tax rebates.
The extra aid included more unemployment benefits and food aid from Congress, in addition to billions of dollars that were provided to assist small businesses. One must also consider the direct checks that went to many American families. Approximately 5.5 million people were able to avoid falling into poverty due to the unemployment benefits, and about 11.7 million people were lifted out of poverty due to the direct checks provided by the government.
In 2020, it was popular among conservatives to disagree with the increase of financial aid. Even after the publication of these statistics, they continue to promote the narrative that federal spending should decrease as the economy heals, and that higher federal spending would only increase the federal debt and avert people from working. Mitch McConnell states that the governmental aid was a “reckless taxing and spending spree” (NYT). Liberals, on the other hand, are more excited to see improvements in poverty with the help of governmental aid. This heavily reminds me of the opinions expressed about the Aid Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program in class today. We learned that the program was criticized for granting benefits to people who were not “deserving” of the aid. Additionally, many thought that it would discourage single parents from working because they could reap the benefits from these programs. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) was then its replacement which would only give support for 2 years consecutively and 5 years total in a lifetime. After the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, made to bar more people from receiving aid, states were able to use the money for various projects that fell under public safety. As a result, When the states needed to provide money to those in need during the Great Recession, many states could not supply aid due to their funding going elsewhere.
Ultimately, I think that the impact of TANF and the Welfare Reform Act both exemplify the importance of continuing to provide federal categorical grants, in order to ensure financial security to families, individuals, and households in need. The most recent report has clear results of the success of government programs aiding poverty. As COVID-19 persists through 2021 it is clear more than ever that government aid can be utilized to improve the livelihood of those in need.
Questions:
Do you think that the government will continue to provide as much welfare assistance as last year?
Should the government continue to provide the same amount of support? Why or why not?
How do you think these programs will be used post-pandemic?
After learning about AFDC and TANF, do you think that it is better for the federal government to provide aid rather than the states?
