Category: Blog

Congress recently passed the Halt All Lethal Trafficking (HALT) of the Fentanyl Act in an attempt to provide a solution for the ongoing opioid crisis. The bill would make the temporary class-wide scheduling order for fentanyl-related substances (FRS) permanent, ensuring law enforcement has the tools to keep these deadly drugs off the streets while allowing practitioners to research their effects on human health. Classifying fentanyl as a Schedule I substance means that those who manufacture, import, or possess FRS with the intent to distribute will face strict mandatory minimum sentences while also expanding mandatory minimums for drug analog prosecutions.

However, the HALT Act has received criticism, with public health experts, criminal justice advocates, and civil rights proponents opposing it. The Act is criticized for expanding mandatory minimum sentences, a proven failure in improving public safety, and warned it would worsen racial disparities in the criminal justice system. By permanently scheduling all fentanyl-related substances, HALT could hinder research on potentially life-saving treatments, as some FRS may have no harmful effects and share molecular similarities with effective antidotes.

The HALT Fentanyl Act would lower trafficking thresholds, making even a trace amount of fentanyl analog in a 10-gram sample subject to a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, compared to the current law where 10 grams triggers a five-year sentence and 100 grams results in 10 years.

In addition, the expanded mandatory minimums strip judges of the ability to tailor sentences based on a defendant’s background and circumstances, shifting more power to prosecutors, who are more likely to charge Black individuals with offenses carrying mandatory minimums, a pattern the HALT Fentanyl Act risks perpetuating and worsening.

Harsh federal drug laws and mandatory minimums have fueled the growth of the federal prison population, with no evidence that they deter crime or reduce drug use, while those convicted of drug offenses now make up 43.9% of the Bureau of Prisons population.

When asked why he voted against the bill, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden explained that it fails to address the root causes of addiction, saying, “The ‘war on drugs’ approach of criminalizing addiction with mandatory, one-size-fits-all minimum sentences has failed for decades to reduce drug use.” 

Susan Ousterman, founder of the Vilomah Memorial Foundation, who lost her son to a fentanyl overdose in 2020, criticized Congress for prioritizing punitive measures over meaningful solutions. She stated that her son died not due to a lack of laws but because he couldn’t access necessary care, calling it hypocritical for Congress to claim commitment to reducing overdose deaths while continuing to pass legislation that perpetuates stigma and incarceration. Ousterman urged Congress to focus on treatment, harm reduction, and addressing social determinants of health to create pathways to healing and recovery.

Harm reduction programs, often run by community or peer-led organizations and health departments, include initiatives like providing sterile syringes, distributing naloxone, offering fentanyl testing, and educating about overdose prevention and safer drug use to reduce the risks associated with drug use.

Harm reduction strategies are proving effective, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) projecting a nearly 24% decline in drug overdose deaths in the U.S. for the 12 months ending in September 2024 compared to the previous year. The CDC credits this decrease to factors such as the widespread, data-driven distribution of naloxone, better access to evidence-based treatment for substance use disorders, and shifts in the illegal drug supply.

Ultimately, the HALT Act is a counterproductive effort to halt the opioid epidemic. Congress should focus more on improving harm reduction strategies around the country and less on promoting the war on drugs. 

America suffered a tremendous loss in 2020: nearly 400,000 people died from Covid-19. In the years following, thousands more would die from the raging pandemic. That is until a vaccine with an efficacy against mortality rates of more than 90% brought the spread to a searing halt. Even still, millions of Americans reject vaccines for themselves and their children each year for contagious diseases like Covid-19, measles, and the seasonal flu.

Vaccine hesitancy and distrust originated in the early 1800s, as smallpox erupted across Europe. The technologically advanced smallpox vaccine concerned the first group of “anti-vaccinators.” Some of those who opposed vaccines believed them “unchristian” because they came from an animal and others’ opposition was rooted in their fundamental distrust of medicine in general.  

In the late ‘90s, Andrew Wakefield published a paper claiming that there was a causal link between the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and autism in children. Experts later discovered that Wakefield falsified his data, intentionally misleading readers so that he could sell a competing vaccine. Not only was his data falsified, but his study only included 12 children—a sample size far too small to achieve statistical significance. Wakefield’s license to practice medicine in the U.K. was revoked and the journal that published the paper quickly withdrew it. While Wakefield faced consequences in his personal and professional endeavors, the distrust in vaccines that he bred still lives on in many Americans today. According to a 2024 study by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, more than a quarter of American adults still believe that the MMR vaccine causes autism (despite Wakefield’s admittedly falsified data). With measles cases on the rise and vaccination rates decreasing, the lower threshold for measles herd immunity is near; the United States is close to losing its “elimination status” for the extremely contagious disease.

In a post-Covid world, where vaccines have proven their efficacy time and again, distrust continues to grow. The need for calm, informed, sensible leadership is exigent in the United States. Instead, the Trump administration called on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the charge. A known anti-vaccine activist, Kennedy has promulgated misinformation, claiming that, among other things, vaccines cause autism. On a podcast in July 2023, Kennedy said, “There’s no vaccine that is safe and effective.”

Where do we go from here? In this critical moment, the onus is on state and local governments to educate their communities, provide emergency response support, and implement state-based vaccine programs. Healthcare providers can ally with local groups to communicate with the public and continue to push back against billions in childhood vaccination funding cuts. In a time where the truth is a hard sell, providers and local governments must put it on the shelves anyway.

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unprecedented ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. This decision has led to widespread repercussions with abortion bans in effect in forty-one states, twelve of which have imposed a ban as early as six weeks from conception when many do not know they are pregnant. Pregnancies may result from sexual assault or pose a severe health risk to the pregnant individual; however, exceptions for such circumstances are inconsistent. For instance, both Louisiana and Arkansas have enacted a complete abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest whereas Alabama only provides an exception for rape. Despite the diminishing access to abortions in these states, studies have shown that almost all other states have experienced an increase in the number of abortion procedures sought and provided.

As states continue to implement stringent abortion restrictions, alternative options such as medication abortion have become more commonly pursued by pregnant individuals. Medication abortion, also known as “abortion pills,” is a process of ending a pregnancy through remedial measures. The process entails oral administration of two capsules that stop the pregnancy and induce uterine contractions which expel the pregnancy tissue. Notably, in the six months after Dobbs, the provision of prescriptions for self-managed abortions increased. However, anti-abortion groups have encouraged the criminalization of these alternative methods. Notwithstanding political opposition, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of the medication to safely and effectively end pregnancies of up to eleven weeks.

Amid state bans and limitations on medication abortion, novel constitutional questions about interstate relationships have surfaced. On January 31, 2025, a grand jury in West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana indicted a New York physician for allegedly prescribing and mailing abortion pills to a minor. After the indictment, New York Governor Kathy Hochul denied Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry’s request to extradite the physician under the authority of New York’s shield law. While various states have passed “shield laws” to protect doctors from extradition for mailing abortion pills out of state, this is the first instance in which such laws have been tested. In its aftermath, this case sparked fear among medical professionals that merely providing telehealth abortion care, even if permitted by their state, may ultimately lead to persecution.

In light of escalating constraints placed on access to reproductive health care, studies have further revealed that there are many facing significant consequences. Namely, racial and ethnic minority groups are disproportionately represented in pregnancy-related deaths and individuals face increased barriers barring access to contraceptives. Such restrictions are associated with surging infant and neonatal mortality rates and an 11% increase in foster care entries. Hence, the most recently discussed case on medication abortions and shield laws is crucial to safeguard those providing and receiving essential reproductive health care. 

At the turn of the century, Measles was considered eliminated across the US. At the time, Measles was not constantly present, and cases were occasional. Twenty-five years later, two children have died in Texas, and another individual’s death is under investigation in New Mexico after testing positive. Measles has since expanded across 25 states, as well as the District of Columbia. The children who passed were unvaccinated. Health experts routinely urge the public to vaccinate themselves and their children as the number one method of preventing the disease. The first vaccinationprovides 93 percent protection, and the second increases it to 97 percent. 

In 2024, there were a total of 285 cases of Measles, and 89% of cases impacted someone who was unvaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. Within the first four months of 2025, that number has been surpassed. As of April 11, 2025, the CDC reports 712 cases, with 97% of those impacted being unvaccinated or having an unknown vaccination status. To protect against the spread of measles, communities benefit from power in numbers. More than 95 percent of a community should be vaccinated. Measles is highly contagious and can travel from person to personby simply breathing contaminated air. The virus can live in the airspace for up to two hours after the infected person leaves. Vaccination rates have been declining and dipping below the recommended amount. 

Experts are concerned about the health and safety costs that come with declining public trust in science and medicine. Parental concerns and vaccine skepticism are seen as contributing to declining herd or collective immunity. Robert F Kennedy Jr, United States Secretary of Health and Human Serivces’s stance on vaccinations has been publicly debated. Kennedy stated, “I support the measles vaccine” at his confirmation hearing on January 29. 2025.

A 2023 study stated, “vaccine hesitancy is a public health threat” and that a “one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful.” Further, it encouraged safe and nonjudgmental discussions about vaccines to help combat misinformation and vaccine hesitancy. Eroded trust in vaccines, and healthcare in general play a significant role in vaccine hesitancy. The sociocultural of a community, and the opinions that the community shares regarding the safety of vaccines influence individual and parental decision-making. Most parents who do not vaccinate their children fear the vaccine causes autism based on a prior study that was later retracted. This study, the Wakefield study was found to be based on scientific misconduct and deemed to misrepresent data in a fraudulent capacity. Since then, multiple studies have been conducted that do not connect childhood vaccines with autism. 

The public health threat of Measles poses a health risk to anyone infected, but is even more dangerous for young children, due to their weaker immune system and developing organ system. All states require children to be vaccinated against multiple diseases before attending school. Most states also include private schools under this set of regulations and other states include children who are homeschooled as a further public safety measure. Babies are recommended to receive their first MMR vaccine between the ages of 12 to 15 months and their second between the ages of four and six. However, special circumstances exist to vaccinate infants as young as six months if an outbreak or family travel plans pose an added risk to the child’s health. 

State laws vary on the types of acceptable documentation required to prove immunizations. Additionally, vaccine exemptions exist for individuals with medical, religious, or philosophical objections to vaccination. Students who are unvaccinated can be exempted from school during an outbreak as an added layer of precaution. Some states require that for a child to attend school without proper vaccinations, there is a parental education requirement to discuss the risks of being unvaccinated. Often, this requirement involves religious or philosophical exemption. In March, West Virginia’s legislature rejected a bill that would have relaxed school vaccination requirements. The state is among those in the country with the strictest regulations on immunizations for school-age children and only permits medical exemptions. 

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision striking down the federal right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization states have rapidly formulated new legislation to restrict access to abortion. This includes laws seeking to criminalize individuals who assist pregnant people in traveling out of state to receive abortions. Today, almost half of all U.S. states have worked to make it more difficult to get an abortion; this is despite the growth in the number of abortions, rising 11% from 2020. This increase makes sense when factoring in the number of people crossing state lines for abortion services, doubling from 81,000 in 2020 to 171,000 in 2023. Even Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the Dobbs decision that states may not legally prevent citizens from crossing state lines for abortion care, citing his belief in the constitutional right to interstate travel.

This explicit interpretation has not stopped states like Idaho, Alabama, and Tennessee from complicating the process of traveling for an abortion. In 2023, Idaho became the first state to ban so-called “abortion trafficking,” which it defines as the “recruiting, harboring, or transporting” of a pregnant minor for the purpose of seeking abortion care without parental permission. In May 2024, Tennessee enacted a similar law, and Alabama followed suit soon after. Abortion rights leaders have been quick to file lawsuits in Alabama, Idaho, and Tennessee, on the basis that the laws are “vague and violate constitutional rights to free speech and travel between states.” Supporters of the laws maintain that they have a key interest in protecting parental rights, preventing other adults from persuading young people to make life-changing decisions. Critics of the law, however, worry about the long-term impacts of “allow[ing] prosecutors to project power across state lines.”

The Idaho law was successfully passed, but without the “recruiting” clause, which was blocked by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. Furthermore, a court in Tennessee blocked enforcement of their abortion ban, but only in situations of certain approved emergencies. Alabama is the latest in this trend, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson in Montgomery, Alabama ruled that “the state cannot interfere with the basic constitutional right to travel, and that prosecuting doctors or organizations for helping patients would violate their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” This presents a win for the fight for reproductive justice in America. 

Despite the overruling of the federal right to abortion in 2022, abortion rights activists are working to prove that laws restricting access to abortion care across state lines present clear violations of the constitutional right to interstate travel and a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech. But for now, only three out of fifty states have enacted this brand of legislation and only time will tell how other states may react. 

Pennsylvania recently amended its Safe Haven laws to allow parents to surrender their newborns at urgent care centers without criminal liability. Previously, under Pennsylvania law, parents could only surrender their infants at hospitals, emergency medical services providers, and police stations without liability. However, in a recent amendment, Pennsylvania’s legislators expanded this law to include urgent care centers. Now, urgent care centers must accommodate the law through policies, training, and updates to their premises. 

The Newborn Protection Act allows parents of infants 28 days old or younger to leave the infant at these ‘safe havens’ without criminal liability, so long as the newborn is not a victim of child abuse or neglect. If a child is a victim of child abuse and being surrendered, the parents may face criminal liabilities.

Healthcare providers are mandatory reporters of child abuse, under Pennsylvania law. As a baseline, healthcare providers always must report any suspected child abuse, even if a newborn is not being surrendered. Accordingly, healthcare providers, ideally, should already be training employees to know the signs of suspected abuse and have adequate reporting procedures in place. When a provider suspects abuse, they are responsible for filing a report of the suspected abuse with law enforcement. Given that urgent care centers are healthcare providers, these facilities should already have reporting procedures and training in place for suspected abuse. 

Yet, because urgent care centers do not offer as robust healthcare services as hospitals, the Newborn Protection Act will require urgent care centers to transport the surrendered newborn to a hospital and place the newborn in the care of another healthcare provider within that hospital. This is an additional step that hospitals do not need to undertake, as they already have the resources to assume custody of a surrendered newborn unlike an urgent care center, which is designed to only provide temporary and acute services. 

Like hospitals, police stations, and emergency medical services providers, urgent care centers must now adequately train personnel to properly inquire into possible child abuse. Urgent care centers are now required to post signage, stating the hours in which they will accept newborns. The urgent care centers will be required to provide an incubator as well, for parents to anonymously surrender their children. Incubators lock from the inside so that third parties cannot access the surrendered newborn.

Ultimately, the Newborn Protection Act seeks to provide a safe way for parents to surrender children. However, urgent care centers will need to ensure they adapt their training and procedures to comply with the expansions of the Act as soon as possible, to ensure that they are not turning a blind eye to suspected child abuse or neglect.