Government Negotiation of Drug Prices Is Cut From New Budget -- Another Victory For Big Pharma

 

“While many Americans share those concerns, polls show that large majorities of Americans – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – have consistently supported government negotiation of drug prices.

“Most Democrats and patient groups have pushed for changes to the law that would allow the government to negotiate prices through Medicare under a cap pegged to what other wealthy nations pay.

"'The United States is alone among developed countries in not having a role for the government in negotiating or setting the price of drugs, and that's why we pay much higher prices than the rest of the world,' said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

“Levitt continues: 'The idea is not just to have Medicare negotiate prices for its own program but to extend those negotiated prices to private insurance plans as well, This would put drugs on equal footing with other types of health care. Medicare negotiates or sets the price for hospital care, for doctor visits.'"

(Devin Dwyer, Erica Y King, and Trish Turner. “Prescription drug cost relief nixed from Democrats' plan.” ABC News. October 28, 2021.)

The federal government could save $450 billion over 10 years, according to one Congressional Budget Office analysis -- savings that could help offset the costs of other initiatives or reduce the deficit. Consumers would also reap savings at the pharmacy counter.

However …

Drug companies have warned that the trade-offs from lost revenue would be significant, upending a key part of the U.S. economy, leading to job losses and less money for research and development of new drugs.

"Of course we make profit, but it's not like we keep it, right? We return it to shareholders who give us money to take huge risk on R&D," said Lilly CEO Dave Ricks, whom public filings show received a $23 million compensation package last year.

ABC News reports that Ricks estimates that despite earning billions in profits, the company would have to cut experimental drug projects in half if the government capped prices – curbing the kind of innovation seen from manufacturers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

An independent government analysis forecasts there would be two fewer new drugs brought to market over the next 10 years, with 23 fewer over the decade after that.

So …

The White House on Thursday said the idea doesn't have enough votes in Congress to support government negotiation of drug prices.

"At the end of the day, there are not yet enough votes to get something across the line," a senior Biden administration official, who asked not to be identified, told reporters.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oreg., who chairs the Senate Finance Committee and is a leading advocate for Medicare drug negotiations, says he is still fighting for a slimmed-down version of the plan.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is also adamant that the proposal be restored before a final vote on the social spending plan.

"The American people are very, very clear that they are sick and tired of paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs," he said. "It is really outrageous that year after year, members of Congress talk about the high cost of prescription drugs and yet, year after year, we are not able to do anything about it."

(Devin Dwyer, Erica Y King, and Trish Turner. “Prescription drug cost relief nixed from Democrats' plan.” ABC News. October 28, 2021.)

 

There We Go Again

Everyone understands the exorbitant profit made by drug companies.

Researchers writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) investigated the financial balances of pharma companies dealing in the business of developing, manufacturing, marketing and selling drugs.

(Fred D. Ledley, Sarah Shonka McCoy, Gregory Vaughan, Ekaterina Galkina Cleary. “Profitability of Large Pharmaceutical Companies Compared With Other Large Public Companies. JAMA. 2020 Mar 3; 323(9): 834–843.)

Their calculations found that in the years between 2000 and 2018, 35 big drug companies received a combined revenue of $11.5 trillion, with a gross profit of $8.6 trillion.

In comparison, the study authors, who are associated with Bentley University in Waltham, Mass., point out that during the same time period, 357 S&P 500-traded companies reported cumulative revenue of $130.5 trillion, gross profit of $42.1 trillion, EBITDA of $22.8 trillion and net income of $9.4 trillion.

However, when looking at bivariable regression models, the researchers found that the median annual profit margins of pharmaceutical companies were significantly greater than those of S&P 500 companies. They found that a 39.1% difference in gross profit margin, 76.5% for pharma companies and 37.4% for the S&P companies.

Richared Frank and Paul Ginsburg in Health Affairs, a publication of Project HOPE, consider if the yield from additional resources going into research and development justify what society is paying in the form of higher prices for drugs?…

“Over-investment in certain clinical areas is driven by competition. And, in a market economy, with government acting only to provide patent protection and exclusivity to allow innovation to be viable, drug prices are set by supply and demand.

“Since much of the cost of producing drugs involves the research and development to create them – as opposed to the cost of manufacturing the pills – the price that can be obtained influences the amount that is invested in development of new drugs. However on the demand side, higher prices lead to fewer units of the drug being sold.

“This demand constraint leads to investment being sensitive to value – what a drug accomplishes medically for patients compared to what it will cost. To the degree that health insurance pays for a substantial portion of the price of drugs, manufacturers can charge higher prices and likely will invest more to develop new drugs.

(Richard G. Frank and Paul B. Ginsburg. “Pharmaceutical Industry Profits And Research And Development.” Health Affairs. November 13, 2017.)

High Prices Without Negotiation

The development – lack of votes in Congress – dashed hopes for what many consumer advocates had considered the best chance in decades for immediate relief to families burdened by soaring costs of medication.

A popular plan to let the government directly negotiate lower prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies – extracting significant savings for taxpayers and patients – will likely not be part of the Democrats' sweeping social spending package, the White House said..

It also marks a major victory for drug makers who have spent millions of dollars lobbying against direct government intervention in pricing.

A Tale of Insulin: Life and Death

The most commonly used forms of analog insulin cost 10 times more in the United States than in any other developed country.

(Emily Rauhala. “American diabetics are crossing borders into Canada in order to get life-saving insulin.” Independent. July 01, 2019.)

Annual insulin costs doubled between 2012 and 2016, a fact with a death toll attached to it. There’s no single force propelling insulin prices to newly dangerous heights, but the problem is exacerbated by the flaws of America’s heavily privatized health-care system.

A lengthy piece in the Washington Post Magazine suggested that pharmaceutical companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) like CVS Health share the blame. The pharmaceutical companies have raised prices in near lockstep.

“Every time a PBM extracts a deeper discount, an insulin manufacturer has the incentive to take a price increase to quote ‘make themselves whole,’” health economist Rena Conti told the Post.

(Tiffany Stanley. “Life, Death, and Insulin.” The Washington Post Magazine. January 07, 2021.)

As insulin prices rise, patients go without. One study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, cited by the Guardian, found that around one in four patients with diabetes say they ration the medicine due to cost, but pharmaceutical companies show little interest in slashing prices back down to humane levels. Meanwhile, rationing can have dangerous consequences for patients who depend on insulin to survive.

A 2019 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that almost 1 in 7 of U.S. adults with diabetes weren’t using insulin as prescribed by their doctors because of the high cost.

There have been many recent reports of deaths in patients with type 1 diabetes because of lack of affordable insulin. The high prevalence of diabetes, the chronic lifelong nature of the disease, and the fact that patients with type 1 diabetes will die without access to insulin make this an urgent problem that must be solved expeditiously. The price of insulin is also a stark and troubling example of the rising cost of prescription drugs in the United States and highlights a systemic problem with how drugs are priced compared with every other commodity.

(S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD. “The High Cost of Insulin in the United States: An Urgent Call to Action.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Volume 95, issue 1, January 01, 2020.)

The Mayo Clinic Proceedings reports ...

“The 3 main reasons cited by pharmaceutical companies for the high cost of new prescription drugs do not apply to insulin. First, the “high cost of development” is not relevant for a drug that is more than 100 years old; even the latest and most commonly used analog insulin products are all over 20 years old.

“Second, the pricing is not the product of a free market economy. Free market forces are clearly not operational; there is limited competition on price, the person who needs the product is not in a position to negotiate the price, and there is no relationship of price increases over time compared with overall market inflation. The price of insulin has risen inexplicably over the past 20 years at a rate far higher than the rate of inflation.

“One vial of Humalog (insulin lispro), which used to cost $21 in 1999, costs $332 in 2019, reflecting a price increase of more than 1000%.

“In contrast, insulin prices in other developed countries, including neighboring Canada, have stayed the same. Insulin pricing in the United States is the consequence of the exact opposite of a free market: extended monopoly on a lifesaving product in which prices can be increased at will, taking advantage of regulatory and legal restrictions on market entry and importation. Third, the arguments that high costs are needed for continued innovation and that attempts to lower or regulate the prices will hamper innovation are not a valid excuse.

“There is limited innovation when it comes to insulin; the more pressing need is affordability.”

(S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD. “The High Cost of Insulin in the United States: An Urgent Call to Action.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Volume 95, issue 1, January 01, 2020.)

Mayo cites the number 1 reason for the high cost of insulin is the presence of a vulnerable population that needs insulin to survive. This population, which numbers in the millions is willing to pay anything to have access to a lifesaving drug. The desperate need for a lifesaving product allows insulin to be priced at high levels because it is not a luxury item that one can forego. The manufacturers of insulin know that patients who need it will spend whatever it takes to acquire it, regardless of price. It is a matter of life and death.

Mayo concludes …

“The tragedy of insulin prices and the rationing that follows is not something that happens in other developed countries, but it is common in the United States. A study conducted at Yale University found that 25% of patients with diabetes ration insulin because of the high cost. There are 30 million patients with diabetes in the United States, and approximately 25% (7.4 million Americans) need insulin. For the 1.3 million patients with type 1 diabetes, insulin is as vital as air and water. We cannot wait to act.”

(S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD. “The High Cost of Insulin in the United States: An Urgent Call to Action.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Volume 95, issue 1, January 01, 2020.)

Conclusions

Why does it seem so often the most basic human needs are denied by the government in favor of corporate profit and greed? Human rights exist independent of our culture, religion, race, nationality, economic status … or political party.

I share the views of Mary Gerisch, a board member of the National Center for Law and Economic Justice. Gerisch reminds us …

“Through the free exercise of those rights can we enjoy a life of dignity. Universal health care is crucial to the ability of the most marginalized segments of any population to live lives of dignity.

“Therefore, we must name and claim our right to health. Only then can we tip the balance of power to demand our government institute a true and universal health care system. In a country with some of the best medical research, technology, and practitioners, people should not have to die for lack of health care including the lack of essential drugs.

“The real meaning of this right to health care requires that all of us, acting together as a community and society, take responsibility to ensure that each person can exercise this right. As individuals, we have a responsibility to contribute to making health care available to each of us.”

(Mary Gerisch, “Health Care As a Human Right.” American Bar Association. Vol. 43, No. 3: The State of Healthcare in the United States.)

School Board of Ohio and Politics -- Fears of Critical Race Theory and Resolution 20

“The Ohio State Board of Education has backtracked on its own efforts to fight racism, voting this October (2021) to repeal a resolution (Resolution 20) that demanded equity for students of color.

“School board members reportedly voiced concerns that the initial anti-racism resolution – crafted at the height of the George Floyd protests – would promote division, with one person going so far as to call it 'a crisis in our nation and our country.' In a 10-7 vote, the board opted to replace the resolution with another (Resolution 13) that would 'promote academic excellence' regardless of 'race, ethnicity, or creed.'”

(Brooke Leigh Howard. “Ohio Schools Freak Over Critical Race Theory, Dump Anti-Racism Reforms.” The Daily Beast. October 14, 2021.)

And, once again, unfounded fears of public schools teaching critical race theory raise their ugly heads.

Now, Ohio joins schools and school boards across the country that have become political battlegrounds as conservative groups take issue with diversity and equity initiatives which critics have equated with critical race theory, the academic study of racism’s pervasive impact.

This panic pervades the nation although research affirms critical race theory is not even typically taught in grade school and is pursued as a course of study at the college level.

Still, lawmakers in at least 22 states have proposed limits on how schools can talk about racial issues, according to NBC News data collected in June. Educators have reported being driven out of their jobs, frustrated and exhausted by the contentious fights.

(Doha Madani. “Ohio school board president to resign after refusing to vote against anti-racism resolution. NBC News. October 28, 2021.)

Damn the facts – right wingers aim to react with accusatory claims and white fragility. Brookings reports critical race theory does not attribute racism to white people as individuals or even to entire groups of people. “Simply put, critical race theory states that U.S. social institutions (e.g., the criminal justice system, education system, labor market, housing market, and healthcare system) are laced with racism embedded in laws, regulations, rules, and procedures that lead to differential outcomes by race.”

Sociologists and other scholars have long noted that racism can exist without racists. However, many Americans are not able to separate their individual identity as an American from the social institutions that govern us – these people perceive themselves as the system. Consequently, they interpret calling social institutions racist as calling them “racist” personally.

– Brookings Education, American research group

(Rashawn Ray and Alexandra Gibbons. “Why are states banning critical race theory?” Brookings Education. August 2021.)

What has become known as “Resolution 20” passed in July 2020, but it was challenged in September 2021 by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who questioned whether or not the measure was legal – and even accused it of being counterproductive to Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy.

Yost alleged the resolution was a tool “designed to establish and maintain white supremacy and racial oppression forever.”

Yost called the resolution part of “implicit bias training.” He said …

"Implicit bias training – reportedly the subject of some debate among members of this board, and promoted by the contra-King movement – often imputes collective guilt, moral deficiency or racial bias to entire swaths of people based solely on the immutable characteristic of skin color.”

“Honest history must be taught in our schools,” Yost continued. “Ugly chapters must be plainly taught… But so, too, should our history include the story of how the American people and our legal institutions put an end to these injustices and continue the work to guarantee equal treatment for all.”

(Brooke Leigh Howard. “Ohio Schools Freak Over Critical Race Theory, Dump Anti-Racism Reforms.” The Daily Beast. October 14, 2021.)

In the end, the Ohio State Board of Education repealed Resolution 20 and replaced it with Resolution 13, that condemned"any standards, curriculum, or training programs for students, teachers, or staff that seek to ascribe circumstances or qualities, such as collective guilt, moral deficiency, or racial bias, to a whole race or group of people." 

President of the Ohio School Board Resigns

Laura Kohler. president of the Ohio School Board and a Republican, said she plans to resign Friday after the state Senate resisted her reappointment amid a political battle over Resolution 20 – the anti-racism resolution that she supports. Kohler is serving her fifth year with the State Board of Education of Ohio, told NBC News she intended to offer her resignation to Gov. Mike DeWine on Friday morning. She said the decision came after the state Senate made it clear she would not be reappointed.

“In October, there was a resolution that was brought forward to rescind what has come to be known as Resolution 20,” Kohler said. “I voted not to rescind and I believe that the fact that I was not going to be confirmed by the Senate is a result of that vote.”

Last year, Kohler helped write an anti-racism and equality resolution in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in May 2020. The resolution passed last year, affirming the state’s commitment to “excellence in education for all” and condemning racism, The Columbus-Dispatch reported at the time.

Kohler believed in Resolution 20 – it outlined all the ways Ohio's children of color, particularly its Black boys, underperform compared to their white counterparts. And it urged both the Ohio Department of Education and local school districts to take a hard look at their implicit biases, test questions, disciplinary records and textbooks.

"We have 20 years of data that shows that Black and brown children consistently underperform their white peers," Kohler said. "Why is pointing that out and saying that is not good enough; why is that controversial?"

(Anna Staver. “Ohio Board of Education president Laura Kohler to resign over anti-racism resolution. The Columbus Dispatch. October 28, 2021.)

But a lot of Republicans saw the resolution as problematic. They – folks like Senate President Matt Huffman, R-Lima – said it opened the door to teaching critical race theory.

"We can nuance the words about exactly what that meant and didn’t mean, but I think discussions about these things and how they are taught to individual students should be determined by the parents of those kids," Huffman said.

The state board, in Huffman's opinion, needs to "stop telling parents how to raise their children" and "stop telling schools boards what to think about this giant social issue."

Huffman made it clear to Kohler that he didn't like Resolution 20.

(Anna Staver. “Ohio Board of Education president Laura Kohler to resign over anti-racism resolution. The Columbus Dispatch. October 28, 2021.)

Things finally came to a head in October when an elected member of the board introduced a resolution to repeal the anti-racist one. This new document acknowledged the achievement gaps for minority students, but it also condemned any teachings that "seek to divide."

Resolution 13 passed 10-7 with Kohler and Poklar voting no. 

The Ohio Senate did confirm the reappointments of three school board members who voted to repeal the resolution, The Columbus-Dispatch reported Thursday.

Kohler said that although DeWine asked her to resign, she did not come to the decision lightly.

“I made it in the interest of the state board of education, to avoid becoming a distraction when the work the board does is more important than it ever was before,” Kohler said. “And I hope to make it clear to folks that I have tremendous respect and regard for Governor DeWine. ... He’s done a wonderful job of trying to deal with the different opinions of everyone in the state.”

Kohler said it was an honor to have been appointed, but “heartbreaking” that schools have become embattled by politics.

(Doha Madani. “Ohio school board president to resign after refusing to vote against anti-racism resolution. NBC News. October 28, 2021.)

Resolution 20

Resolution 20 condemned hate crimes and white supremacy, laying the groundwork for public educators to be schooled on the concept of implicit bias. It also sought to address the racial gap with test scores, advanced placement classes, graduation rates, resources in classrooms, and disciplinary measures.

Resolution 20 then directed the Ohio Department of Education to examine its curriculums and standardized tests for biases and provide training for all its employees on implicit bias. And it suggested local school districts look at their own curriculums, textbooks, hiring practices and disciplinary policies.

The board isn't the only group of elected officials debating how we teach about issues like slavery, racism and identity. Republicans in the Ohio House have introduced two bills that would ban the teaching of divisive concepts. And they've introduced another bill that would get rid of the eight board of education members appointed by Gov. Mike DeWine.

House Bill 298 would cut Ohio's state education board from 19 members down to 11.

The two Republicans who sponsored the bill didn't mention the anti-racist resolution in their testimony, but a lot of the people who testified in support of the bill did.

The Columbus Dispatch reported board member Kristen Hill was among those folks, and she included a graphic in her written testimony that highlighted all the appointed members who voted for Resolution 20.

"If there were no appointed, the resolution would have basically come out as a draw," Hill said.

“The original resolution passed 12-5, and its repeal passed 10-7. The USA TODAY Network Ohio Bureau reached out to the appointed members who appeared to have changed their minds but did not hear immediately back.

“Board member Meryl Johnson had a theory though, and she posted on her Facebook page: 'Some of the appointed members were threatened by some legislators with the loss of their positions if they voted against repealing the equity resolution.'”

(Anna Staver. “Ohio State Board of Education repeals its anti-racism resolution.” The Columbus Dispatch. October 14, 2021.)

For All To See: The Text of 20

20. RESOLUTION TO CONDEMN RACISM AND TO ADVANCE EQUITY AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR BLACK STUDENTS, INDIGENOUS STUDENTS AND
STUDENTS OF COLOR

The State Board of Education (the “Board”) hereby ADOPTS the following Preambles and
Resolution:

As our nation grapples with the hard truths of racism and inequality, we are listening with
broken hearts and engaging with determined spirits. We acknowledge that Ohio’s education
system has not been immune to these problems, and while we earnestly strive to correct
them, we have a great deal of work left to do.

Whereas the Ohio Strategic Plan for Education: 2019-2024 Each Child, Our Future, adopted
by a resolution of the State Board of Education in June, 2018 begins with the vision that in
Ohio each child is challenged to discover and learn, prepared to pursue a fulfilling post-high
school path and empowered to become a resilient, lifelong learner who contributes to society;
and

Whereas, Equity is our plan’s greatest imperative and number one principle; and

Whereas profound disparities between Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC)
students and their white peers exist in all parts of the Ohio education system; and

Whereas gaps between test performance of Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC)
students and their white peers have been observed since Ohio began disaggregating the data;
and

Whereas progress to close these gaps has been uneven and unsatisfactory; and

Whereas a culturally responsive curriculum reflects the history and background of all
students, and empowers students to value all cultures, not just their own; and

Whereas research has shown that a culturally responsive curriculum can motivate students
of color to a higher level of academic achievement and in many cases increase the graduation
rate of previously disengaged students; and

Whereas, black male students lag far behind their white counterparts in several measures of
educational attainment, including graduation rates, which keeps gainful employment out of
reach, and

Whereas starting as early as preschool, black male students are affected disproportionately
by suspensions, expulsions and zero-tolerance discipline policies in schools; and

Whereas “separate but equal” is no longer the law of the land, but systemic inequity in
education has relegated millions of children of color to under-resourced, struggling schools;
and

Whereas significant gaps between the performance of Black students compared to their white
peers exist even in generously resourced schools; and

Whereas the State Board of Education believes that public schools are fundamental to our
democratic society and we must be dedicated to equity and thoughtful teaching of future
citizens that racism, bigotry and hatred have no place; and

Whereas, the path to equity begins with a deep understanding of the history of inequalities
and inhumanity and how they have come to impact current society; therefore be it

Resolved, that the State Board of Education condemns, in the strongest possible terms, white
supremacy, hate speech, hate crimes and violence in the service of hatred. These immoral
ideologies and actions deserve no place in our country, state and school system. And be it

Further resolved, that the starting point of our work in racial equity must be reflection and
internal examination, whereby the board will look for ways to engage our members in open
and courageous conversations on racism, inequity and white privilege; and be it

Further resolved that the State Board of Education shall offer training to Board members to
identify our own implicit biases so that we can perform our duties to the citizens of Ohio
without unconscious racism; and be it

Further resolved that the State Board of Education shall require training for all state
employees and contractors working with the Department of Education to identify their own
implicit biases so that they can perform their duties to the citizens of Ohio without
unconscious racial bias; and be it

Further resolved that the State Board of Education directs the Ohio Department of
Education to reexamine Standards and Model Curriculums in Language Arts, Social Studies,
Mathematics and Science, making recommendations to the State Board of Education as
necessary to eliminate bias and ensure that America’s white supremacy, racism and the
struggle for equality are accurately addressed; and be it

Further resolved that the State Board of Education directs the Ohio Department of
Education to examine all state administered tests for racial bias; and be it

Further resolved that the State Board of Education strongly recommends that all Ohio school
districts begin a reflection and internal examination of their own involving teachers, parents,
students and community to examine curriculum; hiring practices; discipline strategies,
suspension and expulsions; classroom resources including text books; and professional
development; and be it

Further resolved that the State Board of Education directs the Ohio Department of
Education to provide support for school districts’ reflection and internal examination,
including identifying and sharing curricular models and resources; holding sessions to allow
districts to share and collaborate on their actions; and to track progress in implementing
these changes; and be it

Further resolved, that the State Board of Education will be led by our guiding document
Each Child, Our Future and advocate for it as a framework for developing policy and action.

Columbus Ohio

July 14, 2020

Paulo DeMaria

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Banning Books That "Make Students Feel Uncomfortable" -- The Texas Way

 

The most infamous book burning in the 20th century took place in the 1930s as the Nazi party, led by Adolf Hitler, came to power in Germany. On May 10, 1933, university students burned more than 25,000 books in Berlin’s Opera Square that did not align with Nazi ideals. College students from universities across Germany followed suit. Both public and university libraries were ransacked. The books taken were used to fuel huge bonfires that were often accompanied by marshal music and “fire oaths” denouncing anyone whose thoughts, lifestyle, or beliefs were deemed “un-German.” It was the beginning of a period of extreme state-sponsored censorship and cultural control.

This trend continues today as conservative activists target expressions of diversity in the classroom and/or libraries. For example, in Williamson County, Tennessee, a rich white suburb of Nashville, local “Moms for Liberty” group has been actively pushing for a purge of anything they don’t like. This has included demonstrations and disruptions against minimal health protections during the pandemic.

The chapter has grabbed headlines for belligerent protests at school board meetings. They have attacked a high school LGBTQ pride float – one tweet wondered if students passing out pride literature were doing "recruitment." And another meeting featured a tirade by a Moms For Liberty member against a children's book about the lives of seahorses, which she said was too sexual.

Moms For Liberty says the Williamson County Schools curriculum violates state law because it includes "anti-American, anti-White and anti-Mexican teaching."

In May, Gov. Bill Lee signed HB 580, a law aimed at banning so-called critical race theory from schools. Educators argue that critical race theory is not taught or included in the K-12 curriculum and is usually an elective class in college or law school.

Section 51, part 6 of the Tennessee law makes lesson plans illegal if students "feel discomfort, guilt, or anguish."

(Evan McMorris-Santoro and Meridith Edwards. “Tennessee parents say some books make students 'feel discomfort' because they're White. They say a new law backs them up.” CNN. September 29, 2021.)

To such white conservatives, any instruction of the lives and history of people of color (POC), especially Black people, is illegitimate social engineering. It is an attempt to shame their precious white children and that cannot be allowed. So the Moms for Liberty have pushed to purge not only fiction that depicts such experiences of POC but also any history of it.

(“Banning Books to Control History.” Adventures in Censorship Contesting the Right to Read. September 29, 2021.)

And now, a Texas Republican lawmaker has drawn up a list of 850 books on subjects ranging from racism to sexuality that could “make students feel discomfort,” and is demanding that school districts across the state report whether any are in their classrooms or libraries.

State Rep. Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth, also wants to know how many copies of each book the districts have and how much money they spent on them, according to a letter he sent Monday to Lily Laux, deputy commissioner of school programs at the Texas Education Agency, and several school district superintendents.

Krause, who chairs the state’s House Committee on General Investigating, also directed the districts to identify “any other books” that could cause students “guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex or convey that a student, by virtue of their race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.”

Krause did not explain in the letter exactly why he was seeking this information, but his investigation came just months after Texas lawmakers tried to ban critical race theory from school campuses.

The book list includes well-known titles like the Pulitzer Prize-winning William Styron novel, The Confessions of Nat Turner and best-sellers that were turned into movies or television series, such as John Irving’s The Cider House Rules, Alan Moore’s dystopian V For Vendetta, and the graphic novel version of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.

The list of books also includes titles from Black writers, such as Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women that a Movement Forgot by Mikki Kendall.

Isabel Wilkerson’s book Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, which, among other things, made the case that Nazi Germany modeled its anti-Semitic policies on the segregation of Black people in the United States, also made Krause’s list.

Also on the list are books about abortion and homosexuality, such as LGBT Families by Leanne K. Curry-McGhee and Michael J. Basso’s The Underground Guide to Teenage Sexuality: An Essential Handbook for Today’s Teens and Parents.

Krause's list also includes a book that was a hit with conservative readers, namely Eyes on Target: Inside Stories from the Brotherhood of the U.S. Navy SEALs by Scott McEwen and Richard Miniter.

(Corky Siemaszko. “Texas lawmaker says 850 books ranging from race to sexuality could cause 'discomfort.'” NBC News. October 27, 2021.)

Banning Books – A Little History

Book banning is the most widespread form of censorship in the United States, with children’s literature being the primary target. Most challenges and bans prior to the 1970s focused primarily on obscenity and explicit sexuality.

However, even literary classics, including Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, and Maya Angelou’s I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, have been targeted. Challenges have also been made against J. D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, and even the American Heritage Dictionary.

The implications of challenging and removing the dictionary from any library, let alone a school library, are almost too staggering to contemplate. However, both American Heritage and Merriam Webster have been banned in various libraries and schools. In 1987, for example, the Anchorage School Board banned the American Heritage Dictionary for its "objectionable" entries – particularly slang words, including "bed," "knocker," and "balls." 

 

According to The First Amendment Encyclopedia presented by the John Seigenthaler Chair of Excellence in First Amendment Studies, although censorship violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, some limitations are constitutionally permissible. The courts have told public officials at all levels that they may take community standards into account when deciding whether materials are obscene or pornographic and thus subject to censor.

They cannot, however, censor publications by generally accepted authors — such as Mark Twain, for example, J. K. Rowling, R. L. Stine, Judy Blume, or Robert Cormier — in order to placate a small segment of the community.

The Supreme Court in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico (1982) ruled 5-4 that public schools can bar books that are “pervasively vulgar” or not right for the curriculum, but they cannot remove books “simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books.” The Court’s decision was, however, narrow, applying only to the removal of books from school library shelves.

(Susan L. Webb. “Book Banning.” The First Amendment Encyclopedia. 20009.)

Opponents of bans argue that by restricting information and discouraging freedom of thought, censors undermine one of the primary functions of education: teaching students how to think for themselves. Such actions, assert free speech proponents, endanger tolerance, free expression, and democracy. 

Debating Bans

Parents, teachers, school librarians, administrators, school boards – all have a charge and an obligation to protect students in public schools from books with inappropriate content or certain adult themes; however, assess to books is a basic human right. Schools must celebrate reading and promote open access to ideas, both of which are keys to raising a lifelong reader. Fear is always the driver behind the attempts to ban books, and often his fear is irrational and unjustifiable. Lately, much of the fear is driven by political control and narrow-minded censorship.

Consider LGBTQ literature. It was completely absent from school libraries and public libraries and school curriculum until fairly recently even though recent polls (Gallup, 2021) say a record number of U.S. Adults – 5.6% – identify as LGBTQ. Perhaps even more revealing – between 2015 and 2019, the percentage of 15- to 17-year-olds who said they identified as "non-heterosexual" rose from 8.3% to 11.7%, according to nationwide surveys by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Sibal Durand, expert in censorship in young-adult literature says …

“The most commonly censored topics in literature for young adults tend to relate to sexuality and offensive language, with the argument that literature that includes sexually explicit scenes, LGBTQLesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and either questioning or queer. characters, and language that is deemed offensive is inappropriate for the age of the intended audience. This stance largely underestimates or ignores that many young people identify as LGBTQ, are sexually active, and often curse in their daily lives, and that literature simply reflects these realities …

“I imagine that the persistence of book banning and censoring has something to do with adults having a limited understanding of the realities that many young people face in their daily lives. When people challenge books, their argument is often that these books convey ideas that they do not think are appropriate for youth to learn.

“However, banning a book from a library or curriculum implies that some ideas and experiences are valuable or worthy of discussion and others are not. It reinforces one particular way of thinking and limits others, which might not accurately reflect the lived realities of youth.”

(Emma Greguska. “At the start of national Banned Books Week, professors James Blasingame and Sybil Durand discuss issues in Q&A.” Arizona State University News. September 25, 2016.)

In the case of banning lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and either questioning or queer characters in books – the stance largely underestimates or ignores that many young people identify as LGBTQ, are sexually active, and that literature simply reflects these realities.

So, the point is that when you ban a book, you may be hurting someone. These students are being told that their existence doesn’t count. Books are a portal to different life experiences and reading encourages empathy and social-emotional development. Think of it – the statistics put the young LGBTQ population at nearly 12%. That is massive “hurt.”

The National Coalition against Censorship explained that “Even books or materials that many find ‘objectionable’ may have educational value, and the decision about what to use in the classroom should be based on professional judgments and standards, not individual preferences.”

To close, many frequently challenged books help people get a better idea of the world and their place in it. Consider students who oppose the gay lifestyle … even openly display hatred for their fellow LGBTQ classmates. A study found that reading narrative fiction helps readers understand their peers and raised social abilities. Those books about alternate lifestyles can actually build empathy and understanding.

(Keith Oakley et al. “Bookworms versus nerds: Exposure to fiction versus non-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the simulation of fictional social worlds.” Journal of Research in Personality Volume 40, Issue 5, October 2006, Pages 694-712.)

Understanding others’ mental states is a crucial skill that enables the complex social relationships that characterize human societies. In another study, Kidd and Castano provide experimental evidence that reading passages of literary fiction, in comparison to nonfiction or popular fiction, does indeed enhance the reader's performance on theory of mind tasks. That research supports the idea that reading literary fiction enhances a set of skills and thought processes fundamental to complex social relationships – and functional societies.

(David Comer Kidd and Emanuele Castano. “Reading Literary Fiction Improves Theory of Mind.” Science 18 Oct 2013 • Vol 342, Issue 6156.)

"Just as in real life, the worlds of literary fiction are replete with complicated individuals whose inner lives are rarely easily discerned but warrant exploration."

– Kidd and Castano 

 

Political Letter To Portsmouth Residents -- Anonymous Cowardice

 

“It doesn’t matter who wrote the letter. But, the letter is full of misinformation. In my day we called it lies … I am many things: an educator, a pastor, and a husband. I grew up here in Portsmouth and I grew up as a scared closeted teenager hearing people use the typical slurs for gay men. I also heard people talk about the gay agenda. In that agenda, us gay men were supposedly hiding in the darkness trying to lure young boys and men into our evil cult. That is ridiculous …

“I’m sick of it. I don’t care who wrote it. I don’t care who distributed it. But we need to start speaking against this kind of hate and these kind of narratives or its going to produce more hate, more fear, and more violence.”

– Bennie Blevins Portsmouth Welcoming Community member and Community of Christ Pastor, Remarks to City Council on October 25

I must disagree with the courageous Pastor Blevins. He says “it doesn't matter” who wrote the letter, and he “doesn't care” who did. I believe very strongly that it does “matter” and I “care” about the identity of the author(s) of this anonymous letter.

Distributing such a piece of negative propaganda unsigned is cowardly. The author(s) lack the integrity to identify themselves while distributing their hateful narrative as a vehicle to influence votes and to propagate fear and loathing of both the candidates and those with views unlike themselves. They should be ashamed of their underhandedness.

Even though the Supreme Court of the United States in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) held that an Ohio statute prohibiting anonymous campaign literature is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which protects the freedom of speech), this local letter has wrongfully injected race and religion and hate into the campaign, making this campaign ugly when it didn't need to be.

Now, I can use my same freedom of speech to say that sitting on the fence about such hypocrisy enables further wrongdoing and emboldens the very people who intend to use the present political divide to further their political agendas. I call such actions unconscionable. I believe knowing the identity of the author(s) is absolutely necessary.

I commend you, Pastor Blevins for speaking out against this letter. On behalf of the community, allow me to thank you for your work. I wish more clergymen would publicly enter the fray and represent for equality. Again, you are a brave man.

Pastor Blevins, you have your opinion; however, I truly believe identification does matter – not only for verification of the evil content of such distorted views, but also for the missing authorship – the identity of the writer(s) and distributor(s) – who sponsor such political aversion. At the risk of being cliché, I'll use the old National Enquirer catchphrase – “Enquiring Minds Want to Know.” Indeed, we, the public, deserves to know.

The Letter And the Hubbub

Our local paper wrote …

“Last week, a now infamous letter went out to residents living in Portsmouth’s 3rd and 5th Wards. In the letter, an author who is identified only as the “concerned citizens of Portsmouth,” urged voters to cast their ballots for candidates Gary Jenkins and Joey Sandlin as a way to oppose “City Council’s radical agenda.”

“The letter specifically targeted First Ward Councilman Sean Dunne – who is running unopposed – as well as Fifth Ward Councilman Edwin Martell (who is running against Joey Sandlin). The letter states that council, led by Dunne and Martell, have taken Portsmouth in a “confusing and dangerous direction” by supporting the decriminalization of marijuana, enacting anti-discrimination legislation, and leading the charge to have Portsmouth recognized as an All-American City by the National Civic League.

“ The letter stated the anti-discrimination legislation, which prohibits discrimination dealing with housing and employment, will “result in … unhealthy and dangerous gender confusion in young children…(and) also place local girls at direct risk of sexual assault.”

(Derrick C. Parker. “Dunne condemns infamous letter.” Portsmouth Daily Times. October 26, 2021.)

Portsmouth City Council candidates Gary Jenkins and Joey Sandlin have publicly stated they had no involvement with the letter.

Councilman Dunne responded:

“We should stress, as a community, we are not stupid – and this letter was void of all intellect. We are not cowards – and not being able to put your name to something is pure cowardice. I want to stress that. I condemn the cowards that are behind this. I condemn the cowards that have stayed silent about it. And we should use this as a way to congratulate all those that have moved our community forward in a variety different way. Let’s not give attention to those that are here to troll, attack, and be toxic.”

What the Letter Said

The Scioto County Daily News pointed out gross inconsistencies in the letter.

For example, the writer(s) of the letter called out First Ward Councilman Sean Dunne and Fifth Ward Councilman Edwin Martell and accused them of taking advantage of the COVID crisis to sneak the legislation through. The writer claims “the legislation is part of larger agenda that is hostile to religious freedom and will lead to gender-neutral showers and put girls at higher risk of sexual assault”

Such alarmist views are attempt to exploit and manipulate white voters’ fears of a changing cultural landscape, and these ideas have exploded across the country. For, example the right-wing “critical race theory” political charade has people in an uproar over a nonexistent threat. Such absurd claims of a “larger agenda” are absurd statements that would have the public believe liberalism is a Trojan horse for Socialism.

The letter smacks of discrimination. With increasing frequency, we are seeing individuals and institutions claiming a right to discriminate – by refusing to provide services to women and LGBT people – based on religious objections.

Transgender people, especially transgender women and girls of color, are among the most vulnerable populations in the United States. People like Terry Schilling, who runs the American Principles Project in Virginia, wants to make transgender rights a “kitchen table issue” in this election. He believes that opposition to transgender rights for young people “should define the Republican Party going forward.”

Campaigning against the rights of transgender people – especially transgender children and youth – should be seen for what it is: hateful, bigoted, and wrong. Don’t fall for it.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all. It covers all people equally – Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, and atheists. Religious freedom preserves America’s diversity, where people of different faiths, worldviews, and beliefs can peacefully live together without fear of punishment from the government. Efforts to repress religious freedom are not just attacks on individual liberty and human dignity, but on the very foundation that has made America strong.

In an attempt to refute the information in the letter, reporter Cyn Mackley said that “state and federal laws already prohibit discrimination in the workplace or housing issues based on sexual orientation. Federal and state laws against marijuana possession would have taken precedence over any local ordinance.

(Cyn Mackley. “Letter Causes Firestorm of Controversy.” Scioto County Daily News. October 22, 2021.)

It appears Mackley is somewhat right about her information on sexual orientation. According to the Ohio State Bar Association, Federal law now unequivocally prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on an employee’s LGBTQ+ identity. Ohio civil rights law typically follows federal Title VII precedent Local municipalities in Ohio have also passed legislation protecting LGBTQ+ rights, to varying degrees.

(Susan Keating Anderson and Patrick O. Peters. “LGBTQ+ Rights in Ohio: A Changing Landscape in the Workplace.” Ohio State Bar Association. June 30, 2020.)

Therefore, the Ohio Civil Rights Act protects Ohio workers on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, age and military status.

But … and it's a Big But …

“Ohio courts have not yet interpreted this statutory protection as extending to sexual orientation or gender identity. For example, one Ohio appellate court has stated: “Sexual orientation is noticeably not included in the list of prohibitions enumerated in R.C. 4112.02(A) . . . We decline to interpret R.C. 4112.02 to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. We conclude that the protections of R.C. 4112.02(A) do not extend to discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

(Tenney v. GE, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2001-T-0035, 2002-Ohio-2975, ¶ 17-18; (also see Burns v. Ohio State Univ. College of Veterinary Medicine, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-633, 2014-Ohio-1190, ¶ 13 “Appellant refers to R.C. Chapter 4112 and Title VII as demonstrating a public policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation; however, . . . courts have held that these statutory provisions do not apply to sexual orientation.”

The Ohio Fairness Act is a very simple bill that basically adds sexual orientation and gender identity to those already protected classes in the Ohio Revised Code. This version of the bill adds those items – gender identity, sexual orientation – to the definition of sex that's already a protected class in the State of Ohio. It remains a much-needed piece of legislation in the state.

Mackley also said the writer criticized Martell and Dunne for working to have Portsmouth recognized with the All America City award by the National Civic League. The writer accused the NCL of a radical progressive agenda that will eventually “introduce divisive racial and other quotas in all city hiring and contracts, as well as give city government enormous unilateral power over local businesses and institutions.”

(Cyn Mackley. “Letter Causes Firestorm of Controversy.” Scioto County Daily News. October 22, 2021.)

In truth, Portsmouth received the award in 2020 and 1980 and the nomination was widely supported by politicians from all parties. Portsmouth was chosen as an All-American city in 2020. The award, given to 10 communities each year, celebrates and recognizes neighborhoods, villages, towns, cities, counties, tribes and regions that engage residents in innovative, inclusive and effective efforts to tackle critical challenges.

In a Facebook post, the organization said Portsmouth’s virtual presentation was “incredible.” As part of Portsmouth’s submission, they discussed addressing the opioid epidemic and adding community centered events to boost morale.

In support of the award, the National Civic League wrote: “Several studies have shown that countries with greater public trust, equity and social capital have had fewer deaths from COVID-19. These are three ingredients of civic capital, a community’s capacity to solve problems and thrive. Civic Capital is a key factor not only for community health, but for most quality of life measures we care about.

(“Is Civic Capital the Key to Combating Coronaviruses?” National Civic League. October 1, 2021.)

And,, Mackley reported: “The writer went on to say 'The current City Council’s radical agenda will inevitably produce increasing and deepening social divisions. Its push for racial equity and the implementation of the Discrimination Prohibited ordinance will result in Cancel Culture, gender confusion, and viewpoint discrimination, the same kind now occurring in left-dominated cities, states, and school districts around the country. The end result will inevitably be the kind of civic breakdown we have seen in numerous cities, including Portland, San Francisco, and Minneapolis.”

(Cyn Mackley. “Letter Causes Firestorm of Controversy.” Scioto County Daily News. October 22, 2021.)

Many unfounded conclusions in the letter – statements made with volatile language and culture war codewords – spread untruths and create division.

First of all, Scioto County is decidedly un-dominated by the left and overwhemingly Republican. In the 2020 Election, Republicans Donald Trump and Mike Pence tallied almost three times as many votes in conservative Scioto County as Democrats Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Republicans also scored substantial victories in both the 2^nd and 6th Congressional District for Representative to Congress, State Representative, County Commissioner, Prosecuting Attorney, and County Sheriff. That's about as conservative as an area can get.

Cancel culture – the phenomenon of promoting the “canceling” of people, brands and even shows and movies due to what some consider to be offensive or problematic remarks or ideologies – isn’t all that new.

Danielle Kurtzleben, political correspondent assigned to National Public Radio's Washington Desk, says …

“The phrase (“cancel culture”) is so pervasive that it's arguably background noise in American politics now – just part of the wallpaper, a pair of words you might easily (or, depending on your feelings, happily) breeze past every day without paying it any attention.

“Republicans have for a long time used the phrase "cancel culture" to criticize the left. But lately, they have seized on it particularly aggressively.

“Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan used it to defend his fellow Republican, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, as she was stripped of her House committee assignments following her support of conspiracy theories including QAnon, as well as racist social media posts.

"'Everyone has said things they wish they didn't say. Everyone has done things they wish they didn't do,' Jordan said. 'So who's next? Who will the cancel culture attack next?'"

(Danielle Kurtzleben. “When Republicans Attack 'Cancel Culture,' What Does It Mean?” National Public Radio. February 10, 2021.)

In about half a decade, the phrase “cancel culture” has gone from its slang origins to being laden with partisan political baggage. And the recent GOP fixation on cancel culture is, for some, a sign of a party that has strayed from its core tenets …

Kurtzleben reports that "cancel," "woke" and "political correctness" all also happen to be phrases that can be (and have been) used to sincerely debate the best way for a society to be inclusive. But that also is perhaps what made them so easily weaponizable: those original usages imply that there are ideas or words that are not inclusive — that for discourse be inclusive, some speech has to be excluded. 

Much Ado?

In conclusion, of course, I'm concerned with the evident feedback against a progressive movement in Scioto County. Many skilled and concerned individuals have been working to establish changes here. Without their efforts, stagnation would continue to choke our communities and division would stifle upward movement. Most area residents are so accustomed to fighting changes that they grumble, doubt, and even fear the evident realities they face. Most troubling is the resistance to equality and justice. Conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated threats are roadblocks to a better future.

Yet, if you believe in a particular agenda – especially one supported largely by emotion and hearsay – at least claim your stand and use your name to identify your participation. Individualism, self-reliance, and pride are characteristics most often associated with Appalachian people. Even though we may feel isolated in our rural environment, we should not sacrifice our good values with deceit and anonymity.

If your upbringing was like mine, you take great pride in “being raised right.” That raising continues until your last breath, and if I've learned any wisdom from aging, it's that being open and receptive to change is paramount for honest living. May God continue to bless those who enable a better world.

A Litany for Survival

By Audre Lorde

For those of us who live at the shoreline
standing upon the constant edges of decision
crucial and alone
for those of us who cannot indulge
the passing dreams of choice
who love in doorways coming and going
in the hours between dawns
looking inward and outward
at once before and after
seeking a now that can breed
futures
like bread in our children’s mouths
so their dreams will not reflect
the death of ours;
 
For those of us
who were imprinted with fear
like a faint line in the center of our foreheads
learning to be afraid with our mother’s milk
for by this weapon
this illusion of some safety to be found
the heavy-footed hoped to silence us
For all of us
this instant and this triumph
We were never meant to survive.

And when the sun rises we are afraid
it might not remain
when the sun sets we are afraid
it might not rise in the morning
when our stomachs are full we are afraid
of indigestion
when our stomachs are empty we are afraid
we may never eat again
when we are loved we are afraid
love will vanish
when we are alone we are afraid
love will never return
and when we speak we are afraid
our words will not be heard
nor welcomed
but when we are silent
we are still afraid

So it is better to speak
remembering
we were never meant to survive.