Federal Government Contributions

to Public Health and the Environment

 Over the Past 220 Years: 1798 to 2018 

Gilbert Rochon, III, Ph.D., MPH 

[Abstract Submitted to the American Association of Public Health  (APHA) Annual Meeting - San Diego, CA - Nov. 10-14, 2018]

rochon.gilbert@gmail.com

An array of federal governmental deregulations and budgetary reductions with respect to public health and the environment by the current administration under America’s 45^th President have been characterized as rescinding “Obama-era” reforms and requirements. However, an examination of the history of federal contributions to public health and the environment, beginning with America’s 2^nd President, John Adams, and going forward, revealed that the Trump Administration has systematically diminished or rescinded public health and environmental safeguards enacted under multiple previous Republican, Democrat and Federalist presidents. The impact of such deregulation and budgetary reductions especially impacts vulnerable impoverished populations within the United States and throughout the African Diaspora.

 The intent of chronicling the current federal administration’s public health and environmental policies and actions within their proper historical context is to elucidate the magnitude of the clear and present danger to health equity, to environmental sustainability, to evidence-based research and to resilience to biogenic and anthropogenic disasters now confronting the American public, the African-American community and other vulnerable populations, particularly, as well as the global African Diaspora community. To confront these challenges, recommendations are offered for national and global coalition building, science dissemination, legislative and judicial action and facilitating citizen science. A detailed supplemental summary of Federal Government engagement with Public Health & Environmental Affairs for the period 1798-2018 is provided; however, as deregulation and budget cuts continue, updates are ineluctable.

Signed Up

Greetings Everyone:

As I've already mentioned a while back, I decided to join this forum after all, but mostly as a silent observer (no, I'm not a spy for Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump!).

Roy Kosonen

Meet the scientists running to transform Congress in 2018

Meet the scientists running to transform Congress in 2018

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/meet-scientists-running-transform-congress-2018

By Jeffrey Mervis  Feb. 22, 2018 , 2:00 PM

Last month, Randy Wadkins prepared for the spring semester at the University of Mississippi by reviewing his notes for the advanced chemistry course he has taught for many years. Then the professor of biochemistry, who grew up near the university's Oxford campus and received his Ph.D. there, forced himself to step outside his comfort zone: He flew to Washington, D.C., where he asked strangers for money.

Wadkins is running for U.S. Congress, and his fundraiser took place in a neighborhood restaurant just a few kilometers from where he would like to be working come January 2019. Wadkins warmed up his small but enthusiastic audience with a story about picking peas as a child every Saturday on his grandparents' farm to supplement his family's meager pantry. It reflects his "I'm just an ordinary person like you" message to Democrats in Mississippi's first congressional district, who on 5 June will choose a standard bearer to oppose the Republican incumbent in November.

Dem science candidates in 2018

      We have been looking for a really good list and description of Dems running in 2018 and are not satisfied with what we have found as yet. We came across this list of Dems from Science Magazine -- maybe some or all of these are viable and appropriate candidates to support.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/science-candidates-races-watch-2018?utm_campaign=news_daily_2018-02-22&et_rid=325139352&et_cid=1867443

The science candidates: races to watch in 2018

By Jeffrey MervisFeb. 22, 2018 , 2:00 PM

The 2018 U.S. elections have attracted unusual interest from the scientific community—and some researchers have decided to throw their hats into the ring. This table provides thumbnail sketches of some the candidates and races that the research community is watching, arranged by the dates of their state primaries. It is an initial list and by no means complete (all the candidates listed so far are Democrats, for example). The table will be expanded and updated regularly throughout the political cycle, which ends with the general election on 6 November. Let us know if you think there are other candidates we should be following, and why they warrant the community’s attention. Email dmalakof@aaas.org.

Date	District/Status	The science candidates	Race at a glance	Things to keep in mind
6-Mar	TX 7 (Tossup)	Jason Westin (D), clinical oncologist; *	A rising star in lymphona clinical trials at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, Westin faces a strong field in crowded Democratic primary. He's an active fundraiser.

The Supreme Court Prepares To Crush Public Employee Unions

Today’s NYTimes has an article examining the case of Janus v. AFSCME, to be argued before the Supreme Court next Monday. “A Supreme Court Showdown Could Shrink Unions’ Power,”  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/politics/supreme-court-unions.html.  This post offers a perspective on how the very conservative five-member majority uses a case like this to reach its ideological goals, in the process corrupting the First Amendment and weakening the Court's legitimacy.

The petitioner, supported by the U.S. government as an amicus, asks the Court to overturn precedent from 1977 and prohibit public employee unions from requiring non-members, whose interests unions represent along with members when bargaining with government, from paying fees covering the cost of representation. The case rests on the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment; the petitioner claims that by forcing him to pay the union to represent him, he is compelled to support union bargaining positions with which he does not agree. As the article notes, a favorable ruling will seriously erode if not destroy many public employee unions. A similar 2016 case led to a 4-4 deadlock, because Justice Scalia died before the decision was issued. With Justice Gorsuch filling that seat, a ruling for the petitioner seems likely.

The First Amendment protects from government interference not only the right of free speech but also the rights to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. Both kinds of rights will be affected by this case, not just speech. Speech can be exercised by an individual, as in this case, or a group. But assembly is by definition a collective behavior; it includes activities like creating unions that represent government employees. Employees have organized under legislation expressly authorizing them to bargain with government employers. Yet the conservative majority seems poised to undermine the rights of assembly and petition by interpreting the free speech clause to allow the voice of a single dissenter to undermine or destroy the collective voice of organized public employees, by preventing unions from recovering the costs of collective representation from all its beneficiaries, not just union members. Allowing those employees who choose not to be union members to avoid paying representation fees in lieu of membership dues reduces collective bargaining effectiveness by starving the union financially. Reduced effectiveness in turn erodes union membership, creating a potential death spiral. Where state governments have set out to destroy public employee unions, such as Wisconsin under Gov. Scott Walker, their most effective tool has been laws prohibiting collection of these representation fees. The Janus case aims at the same result for every state, by making that prohibition a constitutional barrier.

One Model for Effecting Change

One of the purposes of this blog is to share with each other what actions we are taking as individuals to change politics this year (before it gets even worse). And by sharing our involvement, magnifying our efforts and sharing part of our lives with each other. Whatever we may think about the Democratic Party (we volunteered for Bernie), the Democrats are all we have at this moment to affect change in 2018.

           To this end let us start by pointing to one simple, obvious and necessary model for action; namely choose one candidate that stands a chance to win a House or Senate seat and walk into the campaign office to volunteer or volunteer online. Some of us have done this in the past and some have not; voting this year will not be enough to affect change. Some may be working on state seats, and this is great but more for long term effect, 2020.

           Once in a campaign, as we all know, there is the straightforward and necessary work of telephoning, knocking on doors, getting people registered, talking with candidates, contacting media, writing papers, helping to organize events, strategizing, etc. And this by no means exhausts the possibilities, there are all kinds of actions that people with our backgrounds and experience can and will contribute. Civic engagement as opposed to watching others carry our water on TV.

           For those who have never done this before it is not always glamorous but can be mind-enlarging, working with other campaigners, talking with all kinds of people and points of view, dealing with all kinds of issues that inevitably come up.

           Some are already contributing analyses in the blog as part of their actions and this is completely necessary if we are to understand what we are doing. Let us make good use these analyses as we make our contributions in accordance with one or another model of action.

          The following address is one listing of possible candidates. We are not completely happy with the list and are trying to find better ones: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/everything-you-need-know-about-2018-midterm-elections-n832226

                                                                                                          Ellen and John Brightly

Thanks for inviting me.  I plan to be active participant.

Newton

Brahmin left v. Merchant right

Brahmin left v. Merchant right: an opinion piece from NYT, which I found useful: . May shed some light on the so-called "populist" revolt, and why some Sanders supporters voted for Trump.

https://publiclab.org/notes/gilbert/11-29-2017/chronology-presidential-contributions-to-public-health-the-environment

Chronology: Presidential Contributions to Public Health & the Environment

by gilbert | November 29, 2017 19:01

---

During the term of the first president of the United States, George Washington (None; Federalist, 1789-1797), the first ten amendments to the Constitution were ratified by the States on Dec. 15, 1791 and have become enshrined as the "Bill of Rights." Subsequently, there has been a steady progression of laws enacted, executive orders signed and court rulings issued, designed to protect the health of human and animal populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend for survival, beginning with the term of office of America's second president, John Adams (1797-1801). With rare exceptions, such progress in protections of public health and/or the environment within the USA continued unabated, under Federalist, Democratic-Republican, Whig, National Union, Republican and Democrat party presidencies. Shortly after January 20, 2017, consequent to the inauguration of President Donald John Trump, the nation's 45th President, the trend toward dismantling many of these protections for environmental health and environmental sustainability appears to be dramatically accelerating. Accordingly, it may be useful to review the timeline for such legislation, court rulings, key appointments and executive orders, in order to both place the contemporary deregulations within their historical context and to inform the strategy, going forward, for advocacy on behalf of protecting both public health and environmental sustainability. A chronological summary of such legislation, regulations, executive orders, appointments & pertinent court rulings, during the terms of office of America's presidents, follows:

Marjory Stoneman Douglas and Her High-School-Student Namesakes

Marjory Stoneman Douglas and the School Shooting Victims and 
Survivors at Her Namesake High School in Parkland, Florida

If you think you're too old (or too young, for that matter) to Make a Difference, take a lesson from Marjory Stoneman Douglas, the namesake of the Parkland, Florida, high school where the tragic mass shooting took place last Ash Wednesday/Valentine's Day.

Wikipedia: Marjory Stoneman Douglas Bio

Marjory Stoneman Douglas (1890–1998) was blessed with extreme longevity, so that she was a feminist before the word existed, an early suffragette and remembered her Quaker grandparents' dedication to the abolition of slavery. A 1912 graduate of Wellesley, she moved to Florida, first working as a reporter for the Miami Herald, then quitting in 1923 to become a freelancer.

Although she helped care for wounded World War I soldiers in Paris with the Red Cross and later helped end laws that allowing the "leasing" of prison convicts as laborers, she is best remembered for her tireless work on behalf of the Florida Everglades, founding the organization Friends of the Everglades at age 79 and continuing for the next 29 years until her death.

You may not have heard of Ms. Stoneman, but you have probably heard of The Everglades: River of Grass, her seminal work published in 1947, that changed perception of the Everglades from that of a "worthless swamp" to that of a "treasured river."

Diminutive and outspoken, Marjory Stoneman Douglas stood 5'2" and weighed 100 pounds, speaking in "precise paragraphs" and pointed prose. She used her position as a "little old lady" to great advantage, reportedly saying, "People can't be rude to me, this poor little old woman. But I can be rude to them, poor darlings, and nobody can stop me."

She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, who cited her passionate commitment to the cause.

The young victims of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida, take after their namesake. They are educated, eloquent, articulate, and free of preconceptions. They are not ceasing their efforts for perceived political roadblocks. They are using available tools and platforms to further their cause. They channel their grief and anger into action rather than collapse in futility and despair.

What are we going to do?

What am I going to do?

Kind regards,

George