“Even if the CDC data isn’t perfect, many scholars agree that far too many people are dying during and after childbirth in the United States.
We have many sources of information about maternal mortality, said Laurie Zephyrin, a senior vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics releases the numbers that have been most debated recently, but the agency also has a Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System that employs medical epidemiologists to comb through death records from pregnancy up to a year after birth. Meanwhile, state and local maternal mortality review committees also independently investigate maternal deaths. “All three of these ways of collecting data are showing that we have a problem in this country,” Zephyrin said.
We can also understand US maternal health better by putting it an international context. Comparing maternal mortality across countries can be complex, for some of the same reasons it’s complicated to count maternal deaths within the US. Some countries use a pregnancy checkbox like the one added in the US while others do not, leading to concerns that other nations may be underreporting maternal deaths, making the US look worse by comparison.
However, we know that the US lags behind other countries when it comes to policies proven to improve maternal (and overall) health. Among wealthy countries, the US is the only one without universal health care, said Munira Gunja, a senior researcher with the Commonwealth Fund’s International Program in Health Policy and Practice Innovations. It’s also the only one without federally mandated paid parental leave, and it’s the only country that doesn’t provide home visits and other comprehensive postpartum care, instead often limiting birthing people to a lone doctor’s appointment six weeks after birth. “The US is a clear outlier, particularly when it comes to postpartum support,” Gunja said.
Meanwhile, everyone involved in the debate over counting maternal deaths agrees that Black birthing people are dying at a disproportionately high rate. That disparity shows up whether you use the CDC’s method or Joseph’s, and it’s indicative of bigger problems within the US health care system, experts say. Black Americans in general have a lower life expectancy than white Americans, and Black babies are more likely to be stillborn or die in infancy. “This is across the board, not just in maternal health,” said Angela D. Aina, co-founder and executive director of the Black Mamas Matter Alliance.
Some have argued that the language of “crisis” is unproductive, frightening pregnant people and prospective parents and clouding the search for solutions. “The constant drumbeat that maternal mortality is ‘commonplace’ and that pregnancy is ‘deadly’ doesn’t empower me with information to make my own decisions,” Jerusalem Demsas writes at the Atlantic. “It just stresses me out.”
Reasonable people can disagree over what constitutes a crisis and over the best way to measure how often Americans experience the tragic situation in which a person who is already sick dies from their illness after giving birth.
But experts do not disagree on the basic premise that too many pregnant and birthing people are dying in America, that many of their deaths are preventable, and that we already know some of the reforms — from paid leave to better prenatal and postpartum care — that would save their lives.”
https://www.vox.com/health/356794/pregnancy-health-maternal-mortality-pregnant-cdc
“Many supporters of weakening child labor standards argue that they’re simply making it easier for kids looking for work to land jobs. They also argue that current child labor laws create too many obstacles for employers to hire workers.
But by proposing to expand the types of industries kids can work in or to eliminate the youth minimum wage — which the federal government and many states already set as lower than the standard minimum wage — it’s clear that states curtailing child labor protections are, at least in part, engaging in an effort to make cheap labor more available for businesses at a time when a tight labor market is driving wages up, including for young workers. It’s not a coincidence that so many industry groups have lobbied for rolling back basic child labor protections.
These changes in standards have coincided with a rise in child labor violations by companies across the United States. In a New York Times exposé last year, the journalist Hannah Dreier uncovered the various ways migrant children have been exploited in brutal working conditions that all too often lead to serious injuries. And she found at least 12 cases of migrant children being killed on the job.
“The deaths include a 14-year-old food delivery worker who was hit by a car while on his bike at a Brooklyn intersection; a 16-year-old who was crushed under a 35-ton tractor-scraper outside Atlanta; and a 15-year-old who fell 50 feet from a roof in Alabama where he was laying down shingles,” Dreier wrote.
There’s a stark contrast between the often privileged kids who take a job scooping ice cream or lifeguarding the neighborhood pool for a few months and the migrant and often poor kids working dangerous jobs or ungodly hours. And the weakening of child labor laws has little, if anything, to do with encouraging the former.
“There’s often a disconnect, especially when in states where these lawmakers are proposing rollbacks, where they sort of describe this workforce as if it’s like teens who just want to earn a little bit of extra pocket change and work in movie theaters. Those are the same youth they bring to the hearings to talk about how meaningful and fun it is to work in these jobs,” said Nina Mast, an analyst at the Economic Policy Institute who focuses on child labor standards. “They’re always ignoring the reality that a lot of the most dangerous and difficult jobs are being done by migrant youth or other marginalized young people who are not being represented in these conversations.”
That means that lower-income and marginalized kids who might work to supplement their families’ incomes are entering a labor force with eroding standards.
That could eventually lead to even more disparities: Teens who work more than 20 hours a week tend to perform worse academically than kids who don’t have jobs, in part because they have less time to dedicate to schoolwork, which ultimately impacts their educational trajectory and prospects for higher-paying jobs later in life.
The effort to weaken child labor protections, in other words, helps to “create this permanent underclass of workers,” Mast said.”
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/358193/the-death-of-the-summer-job-is-a-good-thing
“So, on the same day that the Supreme Court appears to have established that a sitting president can commit the most horrible crimes imaginable against someone who dares to speak out against him, the same Court — with three justices joining both decisions — holds that the First Amendment still imposes some limits on the government’s ability to control what content appears online.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined both decisions in full. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Netchoice opinion in full, plus nearly all of the Trump decision.”
…
“That’s such a sweeping restriction on content moderation that it would forbid companies like YouTube or Twitter from removing content that is abusive, that promotes violence, or that seeks to overthrow the United States government. Indeed, Kagan’s opinion includes a bullet-pointed list of eight subject matters that the Texas law would not permit the platforms to moderate, including posts that “support Nazi ideology” or that “encourage teenage suicide and self-injury.”
In any event, Kagan makes clear that this sort of government takeover of social media moderation is not allowed, and she repeatedly rebukes the far-right US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which upheld the Texas law.
As Kagan writes, the First Amendment does not permit the government to force platforms “to carry and promote user speech that they would rather discard or downplay.” She also cites several previous Supreme Court decisions that support this proposition, including its “seminal” decision in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974), which held that a newspaper has the right to final control over “the choice of material to go into” it.
Nothing in Kagan’s opinion breaks new legal ground — it is very well-established that the government cannot seize editorial control over the media, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who cares the least bit about freedom of speech and of the press. But the Court’s reaffirmation of this ordinary and once uncontested legal principle is still jarring on the same day that the Court handed down a blueprint for a Trump dictatorship in its presidential immunity case.
It’s also worth noting that Kagan’s decision is technically a victory for Texas and Florida, although on such narrow grounds that this victory is unlikely to matter.”
https://www.vox.com/scotus/358326/supreme-court-netchoice-moody-paxton-first-amendment
“We know how dangerous heat can be, and we know that danger is likely to amplify with each summer, yet there’s no federal protection for workers against heat.
But that might change soon.
In 2021, after years of worker activism on the issue, OSHA began the process of developing a ruling on a heat workplace standard, with the aim to reduce heat-related injuries and death on the job. This standard would create a set of obligations that employers must comply with to protect their workers from heat. It generally takes about seven years for OSHA to publish a final ruling. On Tuesday morning, the Biden administration made its proposal for a heat standard public — but it won’t be final until 2026, at the very least.
OSHA might face some resistance, though. Historically, some employers and business groups have been opposed to a mandatory heat standard and have lobbied against it in the past. And if Donald Trump wins the presidency, it would likely upend the standard entirely.
Time will tell what a final ruling for a workplace heat standard will be, and how well it will align with the needs of workers.”
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/356217/osha-federal-workplace-heat-standard-protections
“San Diego’s law enforcement child care center, funded through both public and private money, is the first of its kind in the country, but plans for several others across the US are already underway. A bipartisan bill in Congress would expand the model further.
Supporters call law enforcement child care a win-win-win — a way to help diversify policing by making it more accessible to women, a recruiting tool at a time when police resignations and retirements are up, and applications are down. And, frankly, they hope that an innovative model for child care will give a PR boost to a profession that has taken severe blows to its reputation over the last decade.
But it also raises a basic question: Why just police? What about subsidizing other professions, including other first responders like firefighters and nurses?”
https://www.vox.com/child-care/353426/innovation-in-child-care-is-coming-from-a-surprising-source-police-departments
“Steve Ricchetti, who’s been with Biden since his days in the Senate, drove to see the president at his house on the Delaware shore on Friday. Mike Donilon arrived on Saturday. The two men, both of whom had been by Biden’s side during key decisions about whether to seek the presidency in 2016 and 2020, sat at a distance from the president, still testing positive for Covid, and presented damning new information in a meeting that would hasten the end of Biden’s political career.
In addition to presenting new concerns from lawmakers and updates on a fundraising operation that had slowed considerably, they carried the campaign’s own polls, which came back this week and showed his path to victory in November was gone, according to five people familiar with the matter, who, like others interviewed for this article, were granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. Biden asked several questions during the exchange.
The only other people with Biden in the residence when he arose Sunday were first lady Jill Biden and two other trusted aides: deputy chief of staff Annie Tomasini and assistant to the first lady Anthony Bernal. At 1:45 p.m., he notified a somewhat larger group of close aides that he had decided the night before to end his quest for another term, reading his letter and thanking them for their service. A minute later, before any other campaign and White House staffers could be notified, he posted the historic letter from his campaign account on the social media site X.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/21/why-biden-dropped-out-00170106
“One strange thing about the American unemployment insurance (UI) system — which provides weekly payments to jobless people who meet certain criteria — is that it’s not insurance against being unemployed. More accurately, it’s insurance against losing a job “through no fault of your own,” which makes UI more like “getting laid off insurance.”
Aside from a few exceptions in some states for things like escaping domestic violence or hostile workplaces, voluntarily leaving your job disqualifies you from receiving unemployment benefits. Allowing people who quit to receive those payments would be “contrary to one of the fundamental tenets of the UI program. The idea is that we want to incentivize people to work,” said Doug Holmes, president of Strategic Services on Unemployment & Workers’ Compensation (UWC), an association that has represented the interests of businesses in matters of UI reform since 1933.
So the point of the American UI system is not to make it easier to quit a job. But a few economists are now beginning to ask: Should it be?”
…
“Boosting UI generosity doesn’t affect overall employment rates one way or the other. Instead of loafing around in subsidized unemployment, more generous benefits can support people to quit their jobs in search of better ones, which benefits workers through higher wages and better job satisfaction, and the economy through enhanced productivity as people find better uses for their skills.
Put simply, more quitting can be good for the economy. If UI made it easier for more workers to quit their jobs, people would still look for work and the economy could be better off overall. The real losers would be lousy jobs, which would struggle to retain workers with a greater cushion to quit and go looking elsewhere.”
…
“In theory, working a job and buying that carton of eggs are both voluntary transactions. If you don’t like your job, you’re as free to find another as you are to choose a different, cheaper carton of eggs. In practice, especially for lower-wage workers who face relentless economic pressure and lots of debt, adding a job search on top of full-time work just isn’t feasible.
As a result, people trapped in jobs aren’t able to send signals to the labor market that their work sucks and leaves them too drained to find something better. Let this kind of labor market evolve over the course of decades or centuries and you can wind up with an economy full of jobs that make too many people miserable. Without enough freedom to quit, the core logic aligning labor markets with people’s preferences is flying partially blind.”
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/356461/unemployment-benefits-insurance-quitting-capitalism-economy
What two years without Roe looks like, in 8 charts
https://www.vox.com/explainers/356314/abortion-laws-roe-wade-dobbs-decision-mifepristone-supreme-court
The little-known but successful model for protecting human and labor rights
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/357989/worker-driven-social-responsibility-corporate-ethics-consumers
“How exactly Labour plans to accomplish their goals is an open question. Labour doesn’t really have a strong, bold new policy regarding the economy; there isn’t a big, splashy ideological framework.
And on one of the major factors dragging Britain’s economy down — Brexit — Labour plans to negotiate agreements about agriculture and livestock with the EU to bring down food costs, and hopes to make professional services agreements that will help UK professionals work in EU countries. Still, many of the economic pains of Brexit may remain.
And on migration, other than scrapping the Rwanda plan, there’s not too much daylight between Labour and the Tories.
“The current government already has quite a large focus on enforcement,” Ben Brindle, a researcher at the Oxford Migration Observatory, told Vox. Labour’s approach is “still doing many of the things which the current enforcement operation is already doing” to deter irregular migration. And when it comes to migration for students and skilled labor, net migration is likely to go down anyway due to policies already in place, rather than anything Labour is actually doing.
Labour does have proposals on hand to address the housing and transit crises — including by loosening up building restrictions in the immediate term so that new housing, infrastructure, and transit services can actually be built, which could help stimulate the economy.
“We’re using a planning regime that was created in 1948, that is incredibly stringent, and means that we’re just not building things anywhere,” Ansell said. “We have a housing crisis. We have a transportation crisis, and we have a public infrastructure crisis and an energy crisis — it’s all because we can’t build stuff. That gives [Labour] a narrative. It also gives businesses the expectation that actually there’s going to be loads and loads of infrastructure or investment and probably over quite a period of time.”
Ultimately, though, Labour sees building a stable government, especially after the years of uncertainty post-Brexit, as a useful framing — but potentially a part of its mandate. The party’s manifesto is built around the idea that it “can stop the chaos” which has helped exacerbate external problems into national crises when it is in power.”
https://www.vox.com/world-politics/358985/uk-labour-keir-starmer-tories-migration-politics-elections-july-4-rishi-sunak-boris-johnson