5
#000000
#FFFFFF
healthcare
When GOP Cowardice Governs, Everyone Suffers
Republican US House members from Colorado act as if they are trained to dodge questions and avoid accountability for stripping healthcare from their constituents.
May 21, 2026
Just this week, I saw a video that captured one of Colorado’s elected US representatives, Republican Rep. Gabe Evans, happily dodging questions about the huge Medicaid cuts he supported with his vote for President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” I found it especially offensive because I’ve always thought of the US House of Representatives and the people elected to serve there as having a constitutional duty to actually represent. Running away from questions about your vote that will injure one-third of the people you are elected to represent is cowardice.
While Gabe Evans described his vote for Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” (and the Medicaid cuts it included) as “cost saving” during another video, the lives in his district damaged by horrific Medicaid cuts have value far beyond the bottom line. They are his constituents, his neighbors, his friends—the disabled, children, seniors, pregnant women, veterans. Evans’ disregard for the suffering caused by his actions—his vote—is cowardly.
Then I started to wonder if Republican US House members from Colorado are trained to dodge questions and avoid accountability. Some will remember a decade ago when Rep. Mike Coffman ducked out of a town meeting at the local library because 150 of his constituents showed up to ask questions about—guess what?—healthcare and losing coverage. Coffman is now the mayor of Aurora, Colorado—the third largest city in Colorado. It seems cowardice runs in his Republican extended family as hurting people in your own community—town, city, county, state, nation—is not in any oath of office he has taken in a long political career.
Wondering what happened to some of our leaders to create this sense of power devoid of compassion toward the most vulnerable people in our communities? I wonder. How does a person divorce themselves from the reality that a vote that cuts healthcare access is barbaric and people will suffer? Maintaining program integrity would surely have included keeping people covered who need the healthcare social safety net the most. When fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program is uncovered, it is almost always for-profit providers at the core of greedy schemes, yet it is the Medicaid-covered individuals whose integrity is sullied, not the profit takers. It is fascinating and sickening that as a society brainwashing is so pervasive that we label our Medicaid program as something bad rather than the program that has saved millions of lives from descending into illness, isolation, and despair.
Gabe Evans governs from his own cowardice. He’s afraid of rocking the Republican power boat more than he is afraid to hurt tens of thousands of his constituents.
Both men asked us to celebrate their military service to the country. Yet, I find myself angered by that. The men and women I know who served in the military forces are not apt to allow community members to suffer and die as some badge of honor. Most I know who have served hold themselves to a sometimes impossibly high standard of being. They are courageous in ways it is hard to define. It does not involve inflicting pain and calling it something else—or worse. A person of honor would face people with differing views as still worthy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Gabe Evans governs from his own cowardice. He’s afraid of rocking the Republican power boat more than he is afraid to hurt tens of thousands of his constituents. When tough questions come his way, he ducks and runs. He learned his lesson well from other Republican leaders around him about ignoring his constituents when his boss says so. And though the Constitution says his constituents are his bosses, cowardice makes that impossible.
Problems in the healthcare industry have only grown in post-pandemic America, and it will take a very long time to right a ship that was already sinking. Taking access from people who most need it is so wrong, and Gabe Evans knows it. When cowardice governs, there is no room for reason or for explanation. When cowardice governs, we all lose trust in one another. And we must not stand for that. While some run from painful problems, governance must be courageous and protective of those who have given their trust and vote to make sure that it always will be governance for us all.
Keep Reading
Show Less
50 State Lawmakers Condemn $1 Billion From Taxpayers for Trump Ballroom as Families 'Squeezed' Nationwide
"Not one of your working constituents, not a nurse in Ohio, not a factory worker in Michigan, not a single mother in Arizona, will benefit from this ballroom."
May 20, 2026
Fifty state legislators across the country, from Maine and Missouri to Oklahoma and Oregon, are condemning President Donald Trump's attempt to spend $1 billion in taxpayer money on his White House ballroom project in a letter reported exclusively Wednesday by Common Dreams.
"Across America, families are being squeezed from every direction," the legislators wrote to the president. "Housing costs have put homeownership out of reach for millions. Healthcare premiums are skyrocketing after Republicans killed the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits. Gas prices, groceries, utilities, and basic necessities cost more than ever."
"The affordability crisis is the defining challenge facing our constituents, and they sent us to our state capitals to fight for relief," the lawmakers stressed in the letter, organized by Defend American Action. "That is why we are appalled that you are demanding $1 billion in taxpayer money for a personal White House ballroom."
The ballroom is the feature of a project that has already involved "demolishing the historic East Wing and ripping out Jacqueline Kennedy's Rose Garden," as the letter notes. "It began as a privately funded $200 million proposal, ballooned to $400 million, and is now being billed to taxpayers at $1 billion."
The White House has claimed the $1 billion in taxpayer funding is necessary for security-related enhancements to the ballroom project, including a subterranean bunker. On Tuesday, standing outside the construction site, Trump said the roof of the new wing would be home to a "drone empire," an element not previously disclosed.
Trump's GOP narrowly controls both chambers of Congress and is trying to use the budget reconciliation process to secure the funding. After Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled against Republicans' initial plan on Saturday, Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) pledged to try "a new approach," and is also reportedly under pressure from the president to fire MacDonough.
The president and his allies in Congress have ramped up their push for the ballroom project since a shooting last month at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in Washington, DC, for which a man has been charged with attempting to assassinate Trump.
"Your administration claims that your personal ballroom is a national security investment and a major priority. The reality is that it is a vanity project for the wealthiest man to ever occupy the Oval Office, and it will not put a single dollar back in the pockets of working families," the state legislators wrote to Trump. "A clear majority of Americans oppose it, by a two-to-one margin. Not one of your working constituents, not a nurse in Ohio, not a factory worker in Michigan, not a single mother in Arizona, will benefit from this ballroom. Only billionaire donors and well-connected insiders will ever stand inside."
By speaking out against Trump spending $1 billion on this project, Maryland state Del. Adrian Boafo (D-23) told Common Dreams, state legislators are sending a message that "we're trying to focus on how we actually help people live comfortably here in Maryland—and frankly, not just in Maryland, but all across the country."
"His actions have made life harder on everyday American people," Boafo said of Trump. The president's war on government employees has hit Maryland particularly hard, with residents of the state having lost an estimated 25,000 federal jobs.
At the national level, Trump's tariffs and war on Iran have driven up prices of necessities, from gasoline to groceries, as working familes continue to feel the pain of the Republican Party's last budget reconciliation package—the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which gave more tax cuts to the rich while cutting healthcare and food assistance for Americans in need.
"Your budget reflects your values, and what you fight for reflects your values," said Boafo. "And clearly, all this president really cares about is himself and the cronies who are in his administration, and nobody else."
"Reject this $1 billion boondoggle and instead direct those resources toward the affordability crisis your policies have created. Govern for working families, Mr. President, not for yourself and your ultrawealthy donors."
The letter calls on Trump "to reject this $1 billion boondoggle and instead direct those resources toward the affordability crisis your policies have created. Govern for working families, Mr. President, not for yourself and your ultrawealthy donors."
The lawmakers also pointed out how the money could be better used:
That $1 billion could replace more than 200,000 lead pipes in America's drinking water supply, protecting millions of families from lead poisoning. It could fund home heating and cooling assistance for around 1.5 million American families struggling with utility bills. It could cover a full year of food assistance for more than 400,000 working people, low-income families, and disabled Americans. It could buy over 200 million free school lunches for lower-income children, or eliminate waiting lists for WIC food assistance to infants and pregnant women entirely.
Before joining the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Rep. Arvind Venkat (D-30), another letter signatory, was an emergency physician at a Pittsburgh hospital. He told Common Dreams that he has two problems with spending $1 billion of taxpayer funds on the White House ballroom. "The first is that the White House is the people's house. It's not President Trump's to decide what the architecture or structure should be, and clearly, he disagrees with that—and I think that is very dangerous, in terms of what it means for our governance and democracy."
"The second is with all the challenges we have—and I'm a physician, and I've seen, here in Pennsylvania, over 150,000 people who've lost health insurance," he continued. "I don't think we should be spending $1 billion to put a congressional imprint on what is a vanity project, when that money could be used in so many more productive ways, including to help get people health insurance that they've lost."
While the letter is directed at Trump, with federal lawmakers considering whether to give the president $1 billion for the project, Venkat said that "congressional Republicans should grow a spine. It's not their job to simply be a rubber stamp for the president. It's their job to represent their communities and to be a separate co-equal branch of government. Unfortunately, the Senate Republicans and the House Republicans in DC don't seem to feel that way."
Boafo—one of the Democrats running for the seat currently held by retiring former US House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md)—also said that "the Republican Congress should do their job."
"This president hasn't done anything to try to raise wages, neither has the Congress. They have totally just turned their back on the American people. And instead, put all their effort into a foreign war in Iran, and put their effort into White House renovations," he added. "It is just ridiculous. And frankly, this letter and this message is kind of the message I think Democrats need as we head into the midterms in the next couple months."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Sanctions, Siege, and the Female Body
Policies of pressure and control from Iran to Gaza quietly transform women’s health into collateral damage.
May 19, 2026
A delayed shipment of medication does not make headlines.
A generator failing in a maternity ward is not breaking news.
A woman rationing insulin or postponing prenatal care is not framed as political violence.
And yet, from Iran to Gaza, these are the quiet consequences of policies described in distant capitals as “pressure,” “security,” and “strategy.”
Whether through sanctions or siege, the mechanism is different, but the message is the same: Women’s health is negotiable.
The Women, Life, Freedom movement born out of Iran has captured global attention. Women in Iran are disproportionately affected by the intensity of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, with stricter restrictions on their dress, behavior, and livelihoods. The Iran sanctions regime, beginning in 1979 following the US Embassy crisis, refers to the network of international economic, trade, and financial restrictions imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Part of these sanctions include limitations surrounding medicine and medical devices. In sanctions like those imposed on Iran, governments often default to a “humanitarian exemption.” Medical supplies can still be sold to Iran. Food and basic goods are allowed. The policy is framed as not harming ordinary people. So, while sanctions on Iran formally include humanitarian exemptions for food and medicine, these protections often collapse in practice. Banks refuse transactions, suppliers withdraw, and supply chains falter, leaving critical treatments technically permitted but effectively out of reach. Women are disproportionately affected due to their reproductive needs. While sanctions did not create gender inequality in Iran, they have intensified existing inequities in access to contraception, abortion-related care, and maternal care.
In Palestine, the long-term occupation and ongoing genocide have had their own implications for women’s health. Movement restrictions due to blockades delay care. The bombing of hospitals creates infrastructure damage, preventing people from accessing treatment within the Gaza Strip, leaving the healthcare system severely overburdened. Women in Gaza are deprived of sexual and reproductive health services and sanitary products. Women have been documented giving birth in cars, in tents, and on the side of the road. Young girls have reported using pieces of tents as menstrual cloth.
Rob Nixon describes the concept of slow violence in the context of environmental justice. The parallel to women’s health here is direct. Slow violence is gradual, invisible, and normalized. It is not dramatic like war headlines, but it is equally destructive. It is a long-term erosion of health and dignity.
Policies presented as “strategic” or “necessary” produce predictable civilian harm. This damage is not coincidental or accidental, but structurally foreseeable. In Iran, sanctions limit access to medicines and equipment. In Palestine, specifically Gaza, blockade and military conditions restrict healthcare infrastructure and mobility. The common thread is not just genderized violence; it is the collapse of mobility, supply chains, and legal access to care, with women’s reproductive health among the clearest casualties.
We should reject the notion that this harm is unavoidable and that no one is at fault. Policymakers are aware of these outcomes. Reports, data, and firsthand coverage document these consequences, yet the policies continue.
Official reports from the United Nations have documented the severe consequences of maternal malnutrition and food insecurity on infant and maternal health in Gaza. These conditions increase the risk of complications during pregnancy and childbirth, including low birth weight, premature delivery, and heightened neonatal and maternal mortality. Bombs kill people, but policy kills people too.
In Iran, internet access has been heavily restricted, resulting in limited and delayed reporting from within the country. It is important to recognize that the absence of coverage does not mean events are not occurring, but rather that information is being constrained by disrupted communications and censorship.
Predictable harm that continues becomes accepted harm. Whether through sanctions or siege, the mechanism is different, but the message is the same: Women’s health is negotiable.
Global attention is uneven and politicized, where some women’s suffering is amplified while others' is minimized or justified. There is complexity here. The task is not to reduce the rights of some women, but to uplift those who are actively pushed down. Politicians and policymakers use distant language such as “targeted sanctions” to make decisions sound precise and controlled, masking widespread civilian impact and distancing themselves from bodily consequences. The rhetoric gap remains. The reality persists. There is no true humanitarian exception.
These harms are ongoing and documented. Slow violence becomes background noise that we learn to live with. Women are often lost in this conversation despite their disproportionate burden. Their suffering is not always visible or measurable in geopolitical analysis.
If these outcomes are predictable, the question is not whether harm is occurring, but why it is so easily explained away. In reframing what is considered violence, we must account for all consequences, intended and “unintended,” because in practice they become indistinguishable. Societal acceptance of women as collateral damage should be challenged and dismantled, beginning with the recognition that no woman’s suffering is lesser than another.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular