Abortion is a fundamental component of healthcare, encompassing a range of medical services essential for women's health and autonomy. The World Health Organization (WHO) asserts that quality abortion care is integral to the universal right to health, emphasizing its necessity in protecting the well-being of women and girls. [World Health Organization]

 Late-Term Abortions: Medical Necessity and Rarity

Abortions performed at or after 21 weeks of gestation are exceedingly rare, constituting approximately 1% of all abortions in the United States. [KFF]

These procedures typically occur under dire circumstances, such as severe fetal anomalies or significant risks to the mother's health. For parents who have already named their child and prepared a nursery, the decision to undergo a late-term abortion is profoundly heartbreaking, often representing the loss of a deeply desired pregnancy. 

It's crucial to clarify that the term "after-term abortions" is a misnomer; abortions do not occur after a full-term pregnancy. The notion of elective abortions occurring at or beyond full term is a misconception and does not reflect medical reality. 

Abortion as Healthcare

Recognizing abortion as healthcare underscores its role in safeguarding women's health, rights, and autonomy. Access to safe abortion services is vital for preventing unsafe procedures that can lead to severe complications or even death. Organizations like Doctors Without Borders highlight that access to safe abortion care significantly impacts individuals' lives and health, preventing unsafe abortions and upholding bodily autonomy. [Doctors Without Borders]

 

Impact of Abortion Bans on Women's Health

In Texas, 28-year-old Josseli Barnica died from sepsis after a hospital delayed treating her miscarriage, citing the state's restrictive abortion laws. Medical staff waited 40 hours until they could no longer detect fetal cardiac activity before providing care, a delay that proved fatal. [The Guardian]

Similarly, in Georgia, 28-year-old Amber Thurman died after experiencing complications from a medication abortion. Due to the state's six-week abortion ban, she faced delays in receiving necessary medical intervention. The Georgia maternal mortality review committee deemed her death preventable, attributing it to the delay in care. [ProPublica]

These cases exemplify the dangers posed by restrictive abortion laws, which create a climate of fear and uncertainty among healthcare providers, leading to delays in critical care.

Increased Maternal Mortality Rates

Studies indicate that states with stringent abortion restrictions have higher maternal mortality rates. Research from Tulane University found that such states experienced a 7% increase in total maternal mortality compared to states with fewer restrictions. Specific policies, like requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians, were associated with a 51% increase in maternal mortality. [Tulane School of Public Health]

Conclusion

Abortion is an essential aspect of comprehensive healthcare, with late-term abortions being rare procedures reserved for critical medical situations. Understanding these facts is vital for informed discussions and policies that respect women's health and reproductive rights.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade has led to significant healthcare challenges, resulting in preventable deaths among women who were denied timely medical care due to restrictive abortion laws.

[Intelligencer]

We Need Universal Healthcare

Universal healthcare systems have demonstrated the potential to reduce overall healthcare costs for individuals and societies. By eliminating profit motives and streamlining administrative processes, these systems can provide more affordable and equitable access to medical services.

Cost Savings with Universal Healthcare

Implementing a single-payer healthcare system in the United States could lead to significant savings. A study by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst estimated that Medicare for All could save approximately $5 trillion over a decade. These savings would primarily result from reduced administrative costs and the government's ability to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. [Citizen]

Additionally, analyses have found that single-payer systems would likely reduce health expenditures while providing high-quality insurance to all U.S. residents. The main drivers of cost savings include lower administrative expenses and reduced drug costs. [UCSF]

International Comparisons of Medication Costs

The cost of prescription medications in the United States significantly exceeds that in countries with universal healthcare. For example, in 2019, the U.S. spent more than $1,000 per person on prescribed medicines, while comparable countries spent an average of $552 per person. [Health System Tracker]

Specific drug price comparisons further illustrate this disparity. For instance, the diabetes medication Ozempic costs approximately $936 per month in the U.S., compared to about $83 in Australia. [MarketWatch]

Eliminating Profit Motives in Healthcare

Universal healthcare systems remove the profit incentives inherent in private insurance models, focusing instead on patient care and outcomes. This shift can lead to more equitable access to services and a reduction in unnecessary procedures driven by profit rather than medical necessity.

Conclusion

Transitioning to a universal healthcare system could alleviate the financial burden of medical expenses on individuals by reducing administrative costs, enabling government negotiation of drug prices, and eliminating profit-driven motives. International examples demonstrate that such systems can provide high-quality care at a fraction of the cost currently incurred in the United States.

The challenges currently facing the United States—including economic inequality, housing affordability, and escalating living costs—are often attributed to the dynamics of late-stage capitalism. This phase is characterized by the concentration of wealth among a select elite, diminishing economic mobility, and the erosion of the middle class.

The Fallacy of Trickle-Down Economics

Trickle-down economics posits that tax cuts and benefits for the wealthy will eventually benefit the broader population through job creation and economic growth. However, empirical evidence challenges this theory. A comprehensive study analyzing 50 years of data from 18 countries found that tax cuts for the rich primarily increased income inequality without significantly impacting economic growth or employment. [CBS News]

Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz further critiques this model, suggesting that more equitable income distribution—putting money into the hands of the poor and middle class—stimulates economic growth more effectively than enriching the wealthy. [Wikipedia]

Wealth Hoarding and Market Domination

The affluent elite often utilize their wealth to consolidate market power, stifling competition and innovation. This behavior leads to monopolistic practices, reducing consumer choices and enabling price manipulation. Additionally, substantial financial resources are directed toward lobbying efforts, influencing legislation to favor corporate interests over public welfare. This dynamic perpetuates a cycle where wealth begets power, and power begets further wealth accumulation.

Price Gouging and Living Costs

The recent surge in grocery prices exemplifies how corporations exploit inelastic demand for essential goods. Recognizing that consumers have limited alternatives, companies have increased prices, thereby boosting profit margins at the expense of household budgets. This practice exacerbates financial strain on consumers, particularly those in lower-income brackets.

Housing Market Exploitation

The housing sector has witnessed significant investment from wealthy individuals and institutional investors, who purchase properties en masse. This trend reduces housing availability, driving up prices and making homeownership increasingly unattainable for many. The commodification of housing transforms a basic human necessity into an asset class, prioritizing profit over shelter.

Stagnant Wages Amid Rising Productivity

Despite increases in worker productivity, wage growth has remained sluggish. The benefits of enhanced productivity have disproportionately favored shareholders and executives, widening the income gap. This disconnect between productivity and compensation undermines the foundational capitalist principle that hard work correlates with financial reward.

Conclusion

The current socioeconomic issues in the United States are deeply intertwined with the mechanisms of late-stage capitalism. The disproven promises of trickle-down economics, coupled with wealth consolidation, market manipulation, and the commodification of essential needs, have fostered an environment where economic disparities are widening. Addressing these challenges necessitates a critical examination of capitalist structures and the implementation of policies aimed at promoting economic equity and protecting public interests.

The existence of billionaires raises profound ethical and economic concerns in a world where poverty, inequality, and systemic injustices persist. Billionaires should not exist—not because success or wealth is inherently wrong, but because the accumulation of such vast fortunes often comes at the expense of others and perpetuates systems of exploitation.

No Ethical Path to Billionaire Status

Amassing a billion dollars is not the result of hard work alone; it requires exploiting labor, resources, and systems that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Billionaires often owe their fortunes to underpaid workers, tax loopholes, and monopolistic practices that concentrate wealth and power in their hands. For example, companies owned by billionaires frequently rely on low-wage labor and harsh working conditions to maintain profit margins, which is antithetical to the principles of fairness and equity.

As writer Chuck Collins notes in his book The Wealth Hoarders, “The wealth of billionaires is not just earned, it is extracted.” Billionaire wealth reflects not individual effort but systemic inequities that allow a few to hoard resources at the expense of the many.

The Impossibility of Ethical Accumulation

To illustrate the absurdity of billionaire wealth: If someone earned $1 million per hour, working 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, it would take over 114 years to reach $1 billion. This example underscores the vastness of such wealth and how disconnected it is from real labor or productivity. Billionaire wealth isn’t built on hourly wages or value creation—it’s built on capital investments, inheritance, and systems that magnify wealth for those who already have it. 

Why Billionaires Should Not Exist

1. Excessive Wealth Amid Global Poverty: While billionaires hoard unimaginable riches, billions of people struggle to access basic needs like food, housing, and healthcare. The $2.8 trillion controlled by the world’s billionaires could eliminate extreme poverty several times over.

2. Undermining Democracy: Billionaires wield disproportionate influence over politics, lobbying for policies that protect their wealth and interests while undermining the needs of ordinary citizens.

3. Inefficiency in Addressing Inequality: Philanthropy, often touted as the moral justification for billionaire wealth, is not a substitute for systemic solutions. Philanthropy allows billionaires to dictate the terms of charity while avoiding taxes that could fund public systems democratically.

A Call for Redistribution

No single individual needs a billion dollars to live a fulfilling and impactful life. The wealth concentrated in the hands of billionaires should be redistributed to address societal needs, including healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Policies like wealth taxes, universal basic income, and stronger labor protections are critical steps toward dismantling the billionaire class and building a more equitable society.

We must reimagine a world where wealth is not hoarded by the few but shared by the many, creating systems that prioritize human well-being over profit. Billionaires are not a measure of economic success—they are a sign of economic failure.

What is Fascism?

Fascism is a political ideology characterized by authoritarian nationalism, centralized autocratic governance, and the suppression of opposition. It often elevates the nation, and sometimes race, above individual rights, promoting a dictatorial leadership, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of dissent. 

Historically, fascist regimes, such as those led by Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany, have pursued aggressive expansionist policies, enforced strict social hierarchies, and utilized propaganda to maintain control. These regimes capitalized on economic woes and societal unrest, directing public dissatisfaction toward scapegoated groups and dismantling democratic institutions to consolidate power. 

Fascism is often associated with:

• Extreme Nationalism: Prioritizing the nation's interests above all else, often accompanied by xenophobia and racism.
• Authoritarian Leadership: Centralized control under a dictatorial leader who suppresses political opposition.
• Militarism: Emphasizing military strength and glorifying war as a means to achieve national objectives.
• Suppression of Dissent: Utilizing censorship, propaganda, and violence to eliminate opposition and control public perception.

Understanding fascism is crucial, as its manifestations can erode democratic institutions and infringe upon individual liberties. Recognizing the signs of fascist tendencies enables societies to uphold democratic values and human rights.

For further reading, consider exploring the following sources:

• Merriam-Webster's Definition of Fascism
• Encyclopedia Britannica's Article on Fascism
• Council on Foreign Relations: What Is Fascism?

The U.S. political system operates within a narrow spectrum, dominated by two major parties that both align with capitalist interests. Despite the perception of choice, many argue that there is no truly progressive or left-wing party in the United States. Instead, the Democratic and Republican parties represent two factions of a right-leaning political framework.

Republicans and the Rise of Extremism

Over the last several decades, the Republican Party has shifted further to the right, embracing policies and rhetoric that align with authoritarian and extremist ideologies. From suppressing voting rights to curbing reproductive freedoms, Republicans have systematically stripped away rights and freedoms under the guise of "law and order" or protecting "traditional values." This rightward drift has normalized fascist-adjacent policies in the mainstream political discourse.

Democrats’ Rightward Drift

Rather than counterbalance the Republican Party with bold, progressive leadership, Democrats have often responded by moving closer to the center—or even adopting right-wing policies. This strategy, aimed at appealing to moderate or conservative voters, has resulted in policies that fail to address systemic inequalities. The Democratic Party’s incrementalism, such as modest increases in the minimum wage or tepid healthcare reforms, falls short of addressing the needs of working-class Americans.

No True Progressive Party

The absence of a true progressive party in the United States leaves the political landscape devoid of substantial left-wing representation. Unlike many other developed nations, which have labor parties or socialist movements integrated into their political systems, the U.S. lacks a party advocating for universal healthcare, robust climate action, or the end of corporate dominance. Third parties like the Green Party or Democratic Socialists of America exist but lack the resources and support to challenge the two-party monopoly effectively.

The Role of Corporate Lobbying

Both Republicans and Democrats are deeply entrenched in a system fueled by corporate donations and lobbying. Since the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010, corporations and wealthy donors have wielded disproportionate influence over U.S. elections. This ensures that both parties continue to prioritize the interests of billionaires and large corporations, perpetuating capitalist systems that benefit the elite at the expense of the working class.

The Cost of a Lack of Progress

The failure to establish a true progressive alternative has left millions of Americans without adequate representation. Policies addressing wealth inequality, climate justice, universal healthcare, and workers' rights are either diluted or ignored. Furthermore, the cycle of Republicans stripping rights and Democrats’ failure to fully restore them—let alone advance protections—leaves marginalized communities in constant peril.

Conclusion

In the United States, the lack of a true progressive party perpetuates a political system that fails to address the needs of the majority. Both Republicans and Democrats, beholden to capitalist interests, prioritize corporate profits over people. Without a political force dedicated to systemic change, the cycle of inequality, exploitation, and environmental degradation will continue unchecked.

Why Donald Trump’s Policies Will Cost Americans More

Donald Trump’s recent statements and policy proposals suggest a bleak outlook for consumer costs, particularly for groceries and essential goods. While campaigning, Trump promised to lower grocery prices, claiming he would "bring costs tumbling down." However, in a recent Time magazine interview, he admitted that addressing these issues was “too hard” and downplayed his ability to make meaningful change. This stark reversal reveals a troubling disconnect between his campaign rhetoric and his governing priorities.

Tariffs and Rising Prices

Trump’s proposed blanket tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada —the U.S.’s largest trading partners—are poised to make life more expensive for ordinary Americans. These tariffs act as taxes on imported goods, forcing businesses to pay higher costs that they inevitably pass on to consumers. Essential items like groceries, electronics, and household goods would see significant price hikes. 

Economists note that similar tariffs during Trump’s first term had uneven economic effects, but this new round would be far broader and more damaging. Experts predict higher inflation, increased interest rates, economic slowdowns, and disproportionate harm to working- and middle-class families. [Source: Vanity Fair, Source: Business Insider]

For the Rich, Not the People

Trump’s policies clearly benefit the wealthy elite—a group to which he himself belongs—while disregarding the struggles of ordinary Americans. His tax cuts from his first term overwhelmingly favored corporations and the ultra-rich, widening the wealth gap and leaving working-class families behind. Trump has consistently demonstrated his lack of interest in the well-being of everyday citizens, focusing instead on policies that bolster the financial interests of the rich at the expense of everyone else.

A Leader for the Elite, Not the People

Trump’s inability—or unwillingness—to address soaring grocery costs while implementing tariffs that directly harm consumers underscores his disinterest in serving the American people as a whole. By catering to the elite and ignoring the struggles of working families, Trump’s leadership serves as a reminder that his presidency prioritizes profit and power over progress and equity.

The next time promises of cheaper goods and economic relief are made, it’s worth asking: who truly benefits from these policies, and who pays the price?

President-elect Donald Trump has announced plans to deport all undocumented immigrants, including birthright citizens and asylum seekers, within his upcoming four-year term. He intends to end birthright citizenship through executive action on his first day in office, a move that would expose millions to potential deportation. [Reuters]

Financial Implications of Mass Deportation

Implementing such a comprehensive deportation strategy is projected to be extraordinarily costly. The American Immigration Council estimates that deporting all undocumented immigrants over a decade would cost approximately $88 billion annually, totaling nearly $1 trillion over ten years. [American Immigration Council]

Economic Contributions of Undocumented Immigrants

Contrary to some perceptions, undocumented immigrants make significant contributions to the U.S. economy. In 2022, households led by undocumented immigrants paid $75.6 billion in total taxes, including $29 billion in state and local taxes and $46.6 billion in federal taxes. [American Immigration Council]

These contributions support public services and government programs from which undocumented immigrants often receive limited or no benefits.

Impact on Social Services

Undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for most federal public benefits, including Social Security, Medicare, and welfare programs. Despite this, they contribute billions annually to these systems through payroll taxes, effectively subsidizing programs that primarily benefit U.S. citizens.

President-elect Trump's proposed mass deportation plan not only poses significant humanitarian concerns but also threatens substantial economic costs. Deporting millions of individuals who actively contribute to the nation's tax base could undermine the financial stability of public services and impose a nearly trillion-dollar burden on taxpayers over the next decade.