|
On Trump’s first day in office, he passed numerous executive orders.
-Ending Birthright Citizenship. This is a constitutional right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. -Leaving the World Health Organization -Renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America -Renaming Mount Denali to Mount McKinley. This was previously changed by Obama in 2015 -Reclassifying many federal employees, and initiating a federal return to office for all teleworking federal employees. -Terminating all federal offices and positions relating to diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) and environmental justice within the federal department. -Recognizing only two genders. Transgender people will no longer be allowed to serve in the military. -Pausing the TikTok ban for 75 days -Rescinding 78 of Biden’s executive actions, including actions combating racial and sexual discrimination, and environmental protections. -Declaring a National Border Emergency and several other executive orders involving stopping any migrants into the country, even for refuge. -Pardoning the insurrectionists from January 6, 2021. -Withdrawing from the Paris Climate agreement -Restoring the Death Penalty, emphasizing capital crime by undocumented migrants and murder of law enforcement. -Emergency price relief including lower the cost of housing and expand housing supply, but includes eliminating climate policies that “increase the cost of food and fuel” For a complete list of Executive Orders: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/20/trump-executive-orders-list/ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/20/tump-executive-orders-list Other Executive Orders: President Trump on January 21, 2025 issued an executive order that revoked and terminated many past acts that were focused on diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI). Trump has signed several Executive Orders in the past few days that directly attacked DEI programs in the federal government. Included in this Order issued on 1/21/25 was Executive Order 12908 that was issued in 1994. This order was issued by President Bill Clinton. This Order stated that: “Its purpose is to focus federal attention on the environmental and human health effects of federal actions on minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities.” Another was Executive Order 13583 issued by President Obama in 2011. This act sought to: “establish a coordinated Government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in the Federal workforce” Trump also revoked the Presidential Memorandum of 2016, also issued by Obama. This Memorandum served to support his previous Executive Order 13583 and several others. Included in this Memorandum was support in efforts to avoid discrimination in the federal government including: gender, race, ethnicity, disability status, veterans, sexual orientation and gender identity, and other demographic categories. Arguably the most notable and relevant revocation was the 1965 Executive Order 11246 which was later amended into the Equal Employment Act in 1972, passed by Lyndon B Johnson. This act was passed to ensure equal opportunity employment in the Federal government. This included “race, creed, color, or national origin”. This served to give equal opportunity to women and people of color. Within Trump’s Executive Order, he orders the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs within the Department of Labor to cease promoting diversity, hiring contractors to promote affirmative action, and “allowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.” This starts at the top with the federal government, but he continues by encouraging private sectors to follow in these footsteps and get rid of the promotion of diversity, equality and inclusion. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/ https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12908.pdf https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/18/executive-order-13583-establishing-coordinated-government-wide-initiativ https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/10/05/presidential-memorandum-promoting-diversity-and-inclusion-national https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/lbj-execorder/
0 Comments
America is faced with many persistent issues, many of which are due to the growing divide between our two leading parties. One issue that profoundly stands out is income inequality and poverty. Income is a major determinant of health and well-being. Some of the most significant aspects of an individual’s life are determined by income level or socioeconomic status. Income plays a significant role in education and employment opportunities, and most notably housing status. Outside of occupational disparities those with a lower income status are also subject to more health concerns, a trend that has worsened in recent years due to the COVID 19 pandemic. According to the National library of Public Medicine, data from Medicare revealed that older adults with a low income are more likely to be diagnosed and hospitalized with COVID 19.
The COVID 19 pandemic was followed by more concerning trends past the pandemic’s initial stages. According to the National Library of Public Medicine, the wealthy fared well during the pandemic and by august of 2021, estimates suggest that the collective wealth of U.S billionaires increased by over a trillion dollars. Meanwhile, millions still live at or below the poverty line. Data from the U.S census bureau revealed that 37 million people lived in poverty, 15 million of which are children. Considering the impact income has on health and longevity, this is a concerning figure affecting predominantly marginalized communities. For decades, we have seen the effects wealth disparity has on health factors, yet this problem persists. The National Library of Public Medicine found that today 50% of household income goes to the top 10% of income earners in America, while only 13 % of household income goes to the bottom 50% of income earners. This dispairty also coincides with survival rate, as income determines the quality of housing, education, and healthcare. Without the ability to afford necessities, low-income individuals are subject to a more hazardous lifestyle meaning that health factors as well as crime and violence are more likely to occur for those affected by the wealth disparity. For long before the start of the COVID 19 pandemic, wealth inequality was a major problem that created more disparities for those affected. For decades we have seen the impacts this issue has on health and well-being. Like many Americans one can only hope our government intervenes and, at the very least, reduces the severe impacts that arise from wealth inequality. Since the beginning of the 21st century accessing mental health care has been needlessly difficult, particularly for marginalized communities. Many providers have limited what kind of insurance they will accept, putting people in need in a disadvantageous position forcing them to pay out of pocket for treatment. The COVID 19 pandemic further highlighted the various barriers to accessing mental health care and historically marginalized communities experienced the greatest barriers to accessing health care. According to a study conducted by the National Library of Public Medicine, the odds of having health insurance were 40 % lower for people with serious psychological distress than for those without. This is particularly concerning when considering the cost of treatment. According to a study by the American Center for Progress the average cost of a psychiatric diagnostic evaluation in Minnesota is $241 and the total cost for 12 sessions of psychotherapy is $1,920. Considering the broad scope of mental illnesses in contemporary society, psychotherapy providers could recommend more intensive treatment leading to a higher cost for clients in need who are paying out of pocket. This is where we see a clash between insurers and care providers. In some states, insurance companies have the authority to deem what is and what is not a medical necessity. The main problem that arises with this is that it limits the level of autonomy for those attempting to access mental health resources. The interference from insurance companies makes it difficult for care providers to ethically carry out their duties. The term “medical necessity” is also ambiguous and hard to define and clinicians who often deal with insurance companies believe that it is a way for insurance companies to undermine the client’s autonomy and access to treatment. For far too long insurance companies have made accessing necessary care needlessly difficult and it is apparent that having insurance companies active in the process only hinders the progress of those seeking care.
References Director, S. Nadeau Associate, Nadeau, S., Director, A., President, J. Cusick Vice, Cusick, J., President, V., Director, M. Shepherd Senior, Shepherd, M., Director, S., Rapfogel, N., Altiraifi, A., Sozan, M., Correa-Buntley, T., Ombres, D., Ballard, D., & Bedekovics, G. (2020, March 23). The Behavioral Health Care Affordability Problem. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-behavioral-health-care-affordability-problem/ Rowan, K., McAlpine, D. D., & Blewett, L. A. (2013). Access and cost barriers to mental health care, by insurance status, 1999-2010. Health affairs (Project Hope), 32(10), 1723–1730. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0133 Religion is often looked upon as an uplifting source of support and personal growth. Religion and spirituality can provide a sense of belonging for individuals, families and communities and provides a sense of meaning to those who practice. According to the Pew Research Center a majority of the world’s population reports being spiritual or belonging to a religious sect. Religion and spirituality is often seen as a source of resilience and coping, when individuals, families, and communities experience hardship it is customary practice across the world to turn to religion as a source of hope. There is still much debate over among experts and religious leaders regarding how exactly to define religion and spirituality, which makes defining religious trauma and religious trauma syndrome (RTS) difficult. Since this is a rather new phenomenon being discussed among respective fields of social science, the definition of religious trauma remains ambiguous. Initial research around religion and spirituality focused predominantly on coping and resilience among other mental health benefits. Recent research has gone in the other direction and has explored ways religion and religious groups may lead to and amplify health concerns.
One of the definitions of religious abuse provided by the American Psychological Association is “mistreatment of a person who is in need of help, support, or greater spiritual empowerment, with the result of weakening, undermining, or decreasing that person’s empowerment.” This definition alludes to a person’s vulnerability and/or autonomy and brings attention to the needs of the people who indulge in religious or spiritual practice. Religious abuse also results from religious leaders taking advantage of their spiritual position by narcissistically reminding followers of their power, eventually leading to fear and paranoia among community members. The American Psychological Association presents several effects that religious trauma can have on victims including distorting the image of God or a higher power, creating barriers to setting healthy boundaries, as well as barriers to forming trusting and compassionate relationships in the future. The effects can also lead to hermeneutical injustice, which occurs when the victim’s harm results from a lack of knowledge which prevents them from acting in accordance with their own values. These effects can lead to severe cycles where, in many cases, victims suffer from cognitive dissonance and are unable to recognize, or simply refuse to acknowledge, the faults in their leaders and abusers. The recent discourse surrounding religious/spiritual abuse has brought attention to the aspect of cultural competence and cultural humility. Cultural competence relies more heavily on knowledge of distinct cultures, while cultural humility relies on knowledge but also emphasizes the need for critical self-reflection. Religious/spiritual trauma is not universal, not everyone suffers from abuse, and it is the duty of social workers to display humility when working with someone who has endured religious or spiritual abuse. According to the Industrial Psychiatry Journal, RTS was first termed by American Psychologist Marlene Winell. One area of study that has influenced has healthcare providers treat RTS is the amount of research on trauma or traumatology in the last 20 years. Research in traumatology has shown that people react differently, and this could be because of personal or any contextual factors. When victims who have experienced RTS are re-introduced to certain factors or triggers, their nervous systems can be mistakenly aroused and often the victim re-experiences the event. Dr. Marlene Winell outlined 3 stages of RTS which are as follows: 1) Pre-deconversion Trauma- harm done by religious beliefs and practices during the time a person is religious, 2) Deconversion- Acute period of leaving a religion, 3) post-deconversion adaptation- long-term mental health issues, delayed development, and cultural adjustment in the “world.” Treating RTS requires a holistic approach and an understanding of every aspect of the individual. In recent years, specifically from the presidential elections in 2016 to the midterm elections in 2022, there has been an increase in young voter participation in
America. Young voter participation has been typically lower when compared to the rest of the general population in America. While there have been noticeable fluctuations in the 21st century, the most recent trend showed a nine percent increase from 39.4% of youth voter turnout in 2016 to 48% in the 2020 presidential election. The current trend is showing progress but there are still several structural and intentional barriers young voters must face each election in order to cast their ballot. The barrier that stands out most is the targeted efforts to disenfranchise and discourage young voters from engaging in the political process. Most of the efforts to disenfranchise young voters are consolidated in residency laws, which affect college students, specifically out-of-state students. Residency laws require students to either return home or, in some states, acquire a new driver's license and establish legal residency in a new state. This puts college students in a difficult position as they must choose between making arrangements to return home or going through the whole registration process in a new state. Young people face structural barriers to voting outside of the intentional barriers put in place by politicians. On average, young people often move far more often compared to the general population and this is not strictly indicative of young voters in college. Socioeconomic barriers limit the amount of employment opportunities that young people have. This leads to young people working jobs with less predictable schedules and their schedules can often affect their ability to even find the time to vote. Out of all eligible voters in America approximately 40 million of them are classified as Gen z voters. Those aged 18-29 years old constitute nearly 22% of the total American voting age population but in 2018 they made up only 13% of the electorate. The structural and intentional barriers restrict an enormous faction of our society from participating in the democratic process. The population of young voters are currently the most diverse generation of voters and while there has been an increase in young voter participation in recent years, there are still inconsistencies in how each state hinders or engages young voters in the political process. References Brill, L. (2024, January 19). A Silenced Generation: How the Power of the Youth Vote Collides With Barriers to Voting . Mapresearch.org. Tor, E. (2020, February 20). Why so many young people don’t vote – and how to change that. Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy | University of Virginia. https://batten.virginia.edu/about/news/why-so-many-young-people-dont-vote-and-how-change Beadle, K., de Guzman, P., & Medina, A. (2022, March 17). The impact of voting laws on youth turnout and registration. Circle at Tufts. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/impact-voting-laws-youth-turnout-and-registration As we move into the 2024 election season it is important to prepare for the aftermath of the election. Regardless of the outcome, there is potential for civil unrest. Action Link (a LGBTQ organization that focuses on policy and advocacy work) has developed a plan in the event of civil unrest. Plan ahead as we move into November and know that social workers are here to help advocate for those in need.
Preparing for Potential Civil Unrest During an Election Cycle Stay Informed
Self-Defense Awareness
For more information visit: https://www.lgbtactionlink.org/ In November there are two amendments on the Kentucky Ballot. Here is a little information on those amendments:
References Horsley, McKenna. (2024) Amendment 1: ‘Proactive’ or a ploy to stir up anti-immigrant vote? https://kentuckylantern.com/2024/10/10/amendment-1-proactive-or-ploy-to-stir-up- anti-immigrant-vote-boost-the-other-amendment/ Adams, M. G. (2024). 2024 constitutional amendments. An Official Website of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. https://www.sos.ky.gov/elections/Pages/2024-Constitutional-Amendments.aspx Collins, Emma. (2024). Kentucky’s Proposed Amendment 2: Bad for Taxpayers, Bad for Kentucky. https://www.kentuckylawjournal.org/blog/kentuckys-proposed-amendment-2-bad-for-students-bad-for-taxpayers-bad-for-kentucky Pinski, H. (2024, October 9). Kentucky ballot measures. Courier Journal. https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/13/kentucky-ballot-measures/74231405007/ Vanderhoff, M. (2024, September 16). Get the facts: New ad campaign urges Kentucky voters to approve Amendment 1. WLKY. https://www.wlky.com/article/ad-campaign-kentucky-voters-approve-amendment-1/62177936 As we approach the upcoming 2024 presidential election the significance of voting cannot be understated. In recent elections, specifically from 2008 to 2020, voter participation has noticeably fluctuated. Presidential election turnout rates dropped about four percent between the 2008 and 2012 elections. There was a much larger fluctuation found in the mid-term election turnout from 36.7 percent in 2014 to 49.7 percent in 2018 following the controversial election of Donald Trump according to the Journal of Social Work education. The inconsistency in voter turnout rates among eligible voters is considered problematic among experts as a strong democracy is hindered by low participation of voters. Voting allows individuals, families, organizations, and communities to voice concern or disapproval for certain policies. Voting also allows vulnerable populations to a chance to engage in the political process and can be a powerful tool for change for marginalized communities.
Scores of empirical evidence have linked voting and health. One study conducted by the National Library of Public Medicine (NLPM) sought to examine the relationship between differences in voter participation and the impact on public health. According to this study by the National Library of Public Medicine, four interrelated areas were discovered in association with voting. The first is that there is a consistency in the association between voting and health, the second is differences in voter participation are associated with health conditions, the third is gaps in voter participation may be associated with electoral outcomes and the fourth is interventions in healthcare organizations can increase voter participation. The results of this study revealed that voting and health are associated, but more importantly people with much worse health are less likely to engage in the political process. Health is, and has been, significantly impacted by social factors and processes, commonly known as the social determinants of health. According to the National Library of Public Medicine the social determinants of health are shaped by the distribution of power and resources. Voting also significantly impacts the distribution of power and resources as larger voter participation translates into greater influence over determining who holds political power and can enact change in a given community. As social workers we often find ourselves at the intersection of advocacy and empathy in our commitment to justice. Arguably more than any other profession, social workers experience firsthand societal inequities, systemic oppression, and often witness policies fail marginalized communities. The clients social workers serve often lack a strong political voice and the distribution of power and resources works against these communities. Those who hold political power tend to reward those who engage in the voting process by putting forward support policies that respond to the demands of their respective communities. Policies enacted by elected officials typically shape the social determinants of health. With that in mind voter participation has also been strongly associated with socioeconomic status as well. Research has shown that those in lower income communities and those with a lower level of education are associated with lower rates of voter participation during elections. This connection also pertains to people with physical, intellectual, and psychological disabilities revealing they too consistently have lower rates of voter participation. According to the study conducted by NLPM, results unveil that lower voting rates were associated with poor self-rated health measured by health risk behaviors, mortality, chronic health conditions, and hospitalization. The findings also reveal that voting is positively associated with self-rated health regardless of Socio-economic status. The discourse around voting for social workers has been a controversial topic. There are some in the field who accept prevailing myths about voter mobilization while on the job being partisan considering it unethical, with some even going as far as to say it is illegal according to the Journal of Social Work Education. On the contrary, voting is an extension of a Social Workers professional ethics and encouraging clients to register can be a powerful tool for change, especially for vulnerable populations. At the most basic level, Social Workers should lead by example, and by not engaging in the political process is unethical and not conducive to fostering change and empowerment. References Abramovitz, M., Sherraden, M., Hill, K., Smith, T. R., Lewis, B., & Mizrahi, T. (2019). Voting is Social Work: Voices From the National Social Work Voter Mobilization Campaign. Journal of Social Work Education, 55(4), 626–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1656690 Brown CL, Raza D, Pinto AD. Voting, health and interventions in healthcare settings: a scoping review. Public Health Rev. 2020 Jul 1;41:16. doi: 10.1186/s40985-020-00133-6. PMID: 32626605; PMCID: PMC7329475. Mental health has long been overlooked as a crucial factor in overall health and well-being. However, recently mental health has recently taken center stage in public health discussions across the nation. Like every state, the state of Kentucky faces a unique set of challenges regarding mental health and mental illness ranging from substance abuse problems to suicide to depression & anxiety. Of the major concerns that arise with these varying mental health concerns, one that is often ignored is the victims’ access to the appropriate healthcare. Most Americans, approximately 164 million have insurance plans via their employers. Despite that, in many states including Kentucky, insurers can set their own standards regarding what they deem as a medical necessity. Often instances occur where an insurance company interposes itself between the mental healthcare provider and the client sometimes threatening the provider’s job security, often assaulting their dignity, as well as sifting through case notes with sensitive details. Social workers, healthcare providers, therapists, psychologists, etc., commonly deal with these ethical dilemmas which often leaves them in a situation where they wish to act morally but cannot given the constraints of their predicament. In some instances, this leads to our most vulnerable communities being denied access to proper health care due to the insurance companies interfering with the process.
In recent years Kentucky has made several critical legislative moves to address the mental health challenges our state is facing. Our state wants to make mental health care more affordable and accessible to ensure individuals receive the care that they need. One of the most significant changes in mental health law in our state was Tim’s Law in 2017, which allows for court-ordered outpatient treatment for individuals who have been involuntarily hospitalized multiple times. The law is aimed at preventing a vicious cycle of hospitalization and release by ensuring those with severe mental illness remain in treatment. So instead of cycling through the system of state hospitals, or in many cases jails, Tim’s law gets people with the most severe mental illness into outpatient treatment. Tim's law has become a valuable tool is assessing the need for treatment in unique cases of mental illness. Recently, in June of 2022, Govenor Andy Beshear signed for two bills aimed at helping more individuals across the state access mental health services. The first bill, House Bill 127, expands access to assisted treatment. This bill allows the courts to order outpatient care for individuals with serious mental illnesses. This method is intended to ensure that every individual with a severe mental illness is guaranteed the treatment they need even if they do not have the means to access treatment on their own. Second the Govenor signed house bill 562 aimed getting first responders across the state access to the mental health care they need. The bill has sanctions allowing for peace officers, firefighters, EMS workers, and any other first responder to take 48 hours leave after being involved in a criminal incident. The incidents could refer to anything from a car accident to the death of a colleague. Each of these bills, House Bill 127 in particular, is aimed at expanding Tim’s law (2017) by allowing for greater access to those who would benefit from outpatient treatment by modifying the criteria for medical necessity. House Bill 127 also requires more thorough evaluation of individuals who may receive court-ordered treatment. Another way this Bill expands on Tim’s law is by helping to cover additional treatment costs necessary to ensure successful re-entry into the community. Our state has made big strides in making mental health care affordable and accessible to those who need it most. There are still more laws that need to be passed to reduce interference from insurers regarding those who still experience barriers to accessing treatment. In many states, including Kentucky, insurers are often able to set their own standards for defining when mental health services are medically necessary. This is alarming considering our state does not have any laws or sanctions that regulate how insurers conduct reviews of behavioral healthcare. This subjects both clients, and those in need of treatment, to the judgement of an insurer and prevents providers from being able to act morally given the constraints of their predicament. There is no guideline in the NASW’s code of ethics that specifies for providers how to balance the disparity of profit-motives and service to vulnerable populations and creates a persistent ethical challenge that many healthcare providers as well as policy makers must navigate. The federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 banned some of the harsher restrictions insurers had for those seeking treatment for mental health. However, since the passing of this act insurers have turned to utilization reviews, in which they can request progress notes from the providers which are full of sensitive details and as part of their assessment process. Healthcare providers have found that these reviews are only used as a means to dispute the necessity of further treatment. References Team Kentucky (2022). Gov. Andy Beshear Signs Two Bills Supporting Mental Health Access https://www.kentucky.gov/Pages/Activity-stream.aspx?n=GovernorBeshear&prId=1381#:~:text=Since%202017%2C%20Kentucky%2C%20along%20with,it%20out%20on%20their%20own. NASW. (2021) Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English Annie Waldman and Maya Miller (2024, August 27) What Mental Health Care Protections Exist in Your State? https://www.propublica.org/article/mental-health-wiltn-states Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (2024). The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity act (MHPAEA). https://www.cms.gov/marketplace/private-health-insurance/mental-health-parity-addiction-equity Submitted by William King, BSW Practicum Student, University of Kentucky Updates regarding the Social Work Compact:
The Department of Health and Human Services, through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), announced the first-ever Licensure Portability Grant Program, which is an investment in a multi-state social worker licensure compact. This grant will provide $2.5 million in support of the Social Work Compact. This welcome support will make the implementation of the Compact easier and less of a financial burden for LCSWs who live in states that have passed the Compact and choose to join as individuals. Please visit the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website for more information. More details about the Compact will be forthcoming after the September 17 meeting to establish the Commission that will be running the Compact, which I will be running as Interim Chair. CSWA will continue to provide information about the Compact as it develops. What does this mean for social workers? This could provide more options for our clients, for work opportunities, and for the growth of mental health care throughout the United States. Stay up to date with all the current news with KSCSW. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed