Human Rights Issues – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Say Her Name: Emily Pike, Another Tale of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women

Image 1: US Highway 60 with forest on either side. Source: Yahoo Images.

Along Highway 60 near Northeast of Globe, Arizona there are remote forests that surround the road. Cacti, prickly pears, and other desert shrubs litter the floors of the forest and create a desert-like oasis. Among the cacti, hidden in the desolate forest, a young girl’s dismembered remains were found in black trash bags on February 14, 2025. Her name was Emily Pike. One Hundred miles from the last place Emily Pike was seen alive, near mile marker 277, the 14 year old girl was found 1 month after being reported missing. Hers is just one horrific tale in a long timeline of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

Generations of Indigenous people have been subjected to perpetual cycles of abuse. Statistically, Native Americans and Alaska Natives are more likely to experiences higher rates of murder, rape, and violent crimes compared to the rest of the United States, with violence rates on reservations being ten times higher than the national average. Along with that, there aren’t reliable records of how many Native American women go missing and/or murdered each year. This is a violation of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states that no person should be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

In 2016, 5,712 American Indian and Alaska Native women and girls were reported missing by the National Crime Information Center. Out of the 5,712 cases, only 116 were recorded in the U.S. Department of Justice’s federal missing persons cases. Just in the year 2023, 5,800 Indigenous women –74 percent of them children– were missing. Article 7 of the UDHR states that all are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination and should be considered equal before the law. The third leading cause of death for Indigenous women and girls is homicide.

The dead can see red. This is a belief held by many Native Americans. For many years, a red hand has represented a connection from the spirit world over to the physical world. Now, a red handprint across the mouth has come to symbolize the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW) movement. For this blog, I will examine the timeline of Emily Pike’s death, the other children that ran away from Sacred Journey Inc. group home, and the introduction of Arizona House Bill (HB) 2281, which would create an alert system that would notify when an indigenous person goes missing.

Emily Pike’s Missing and Murder Case:

Woman with a red hand print over her mouth. — Image 2: Woman with a red handprint over her mouth. Source: Yahoo Images.

First and foremost, she was known for her smile. Family members and staff at the Sacred Journey Inc. have commented on her bubbly personality and how she was always quick with a smile. Emily Pike was a young Native American girl and a member of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. She grew up with her cousins, brother, mother, and grandmother on a reservation. After she was hospitalized due to self-harm, she was placed at Sacred Journey Inc. by the San Carlos Apache Tribe’s Social Services Department in September of 2023. The Sacred Journey Inc. is a group home for girls ages 7-18.

On September 11, 2023, Emily Pike and another child were reported missing by the group home. The girls had escaped through their bedroom window after staff administered their medication. There was no surveillance footage of the girls leaving; however, they were later found at Kleinman Park. The girls told police that they were forced to scrub baseboards, walls, and windowsills at Sacred Journey Inc. They also mentioned that they would have to get on their hands and knees to scrub the tiles. It was reported that one of the girls said she would just escape again if they took her back. Both girls were returned.

Nine days later, on September 20, 2023, Emily Pike was reported missing. An officer later found her out walking, and Emily stated that the staff would argue with the other young girls at the home, which made her uncomfortable. She did not want to return to the group home. Emily was sent to a mental health facility to get an evaluation at Mind 24/7. After the evaluation, she was returned to Sacred Journey Inc.

On October 31, 2023, the group home’s staff reported at 6:36 PM that Emily had run away again. At 9:15 PM the home called the police again to let them know that Emily had returned. Staff said there was no need for immediate medical attention and monitored her throughout the night.

Emily Pike ran away from the group home for the last time on January 27, 2025. Pike was reported missing to police by 8:19 PM and was last seen on an intersection near Mesa Drive and McKellips Road. Staff members reported that Pike was on medication for her behavioral and mental health issues. Two days later, on January 29th, a statewide missing person bulletin was issued for Emily Pike. Throughout the first week of February, there were multiple voice messages to police and the group home stating that Emily Pike was with her mother on the San Carlos Apache reservation. These claims were proven false after communication with Pike’s mother.

There is a trail near mile marker 277 of Highway 60 northeast of Globe, AZ. On February 14, 2025, suspicious black trash bags were found on the trail by a group of people. The two trash bags contained the remains of Emily Pike, around 100 miles from the last place she was seen alive. Emily Pike was finally found after a month of being missing. Police say she was most likely murdered at a different location and later placed on the trail near Highway 60. An autopsy could not reveal what the cause of death was.

What About the Other Missing Children?

MMIW movement with woman holding a sign that says, "You are not forgotten". — Image 3: MMIW movement with woman holding a sign that says, “You are not forgotten”. Source: Yahoo Images.

The San Carlos Apache tribe has called for an investigation into Sacred Journey Inc. and the other 30 children that have gone missing from this group home in the past three years before, according to the group home’s operator, Elizabeth Morales, eventually being found. Along with that, they are pushing for state-licensed residential children group homes to have stricter regulations. After Emily Pike went missing and was murdered shortly afterwards, the tribe has put more pressure on state leaders to make change.

Emily Pike was reported four times for running away before she was murdered. Each time it was thought that she left through her window. There was never any security footage of her leaving, and it is unknown if any further security methods were put into place after the first three times Pike ran away. In addition to Emily Pike, Veronica Cruz is another young girl who went missing from the Sacred Journey Inc. group home. On May 18, 2024, 17-year-old Veronica Cruz went missing around 5:00 PM. and was not found for almost a year, at which point she was said to have reunited with her family. The Mesa Police Department has yet to verify this.

The group home’s operator, Elizabeth Morales, commented that the other 30 children that had gone missing were accounted for and that children often ran away, but were always found. That was, until Emily Pike.

Arizona House Bill 2281:

Image 4: Arizona state capital building. Source: Yahoo Images.

On March 21, 2025 the San Carlos Apache tribe sent a letter to the Arizona legislature, urging them to pass House Bill (HB) 2281. This house bill would establish a Missing Indigenous Person Alert System. The alert system would immediately send out a notification as soon as an indigenous person is reported missing. This system would be similar to an Amber Alert system. An alert system like this would be extremely useful, as there is not a current system in place that keeps an accurate track of how many indigenous people go missing every year.

The San Carlos Apache tribe also stated that they are offering a reward of $75,000 for any information that leads to the arrest and conviction of Emily Pike’s murderer. Along with the reward they called for an investigation into the group home regarding their safety measures. Why have over 30 residents gone missing from the Sacred Journey Inc.? What safety measures has the group home taken to ensure that their residents are safe? These are questions that need to be answered so that no other child is hurt.

Conclusion:

Emily Pike’s murderer(s) have yet to be found. The case is still in the early stages, and it is important that her story is not forgotten. Too many indigenous people go missing and/or murdered every year. The violence that indigenous people, women and girls in particular, experience is at an alarmingly high rate. To read more about the violence that indigenous women experience and the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW) movement, read Maya Crocker’s blog post Our Lost Indigenous Women. To read more about how Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) women receive disproportionately less media coverage than white women when they are missing, check out Mary Bailey’s blog post How Black and Indigenous Women are Detrimentally Affected by ‘Missing White Woman Syndrome’ and Arshnoor Grewal’s blog post The Missing Case of Gabby Petito and the Cases of Missing Indigenous Women.

If you would like to see Emily Pike’s crime timeline, check out Case Files for Missing and Endangered. Emily Pike’s death is a travesty, and more attention is needed on all the unsolved cases of indigenous women who are missing and/or murdered. As for Emily Pike, until her murderer(s) are found, tried, and convicted, her name should be spread far and wide.

Who Gets to Decide? Prescription Laws, Public Health, and the Ethics of Medical Gatekeeping

In a world where people are expected to take responsibility for their health, the systems meant to support them too often stand in the way. Around the globe, and especially in the United States, access to essential medications is tightly controlled by prescription laws. These laws are often justified on the grounds of safety, but they also raise a pressing human rights concern: What happens when gatekeeping itself becomes a barrier to health, autonomy, and dignity?

This blog argues that prescription drug laws, as they currently function, too often violate the core principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). These include the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being (Article 25), the right to autonomy and freedom from arbitrary interference (Article 3 and 12), and the right to equal access to public services and protection (Article 21). By rethinking how access to medications is regulated, we can move toward a more equitable and compassionate model of care.

Prescription Control as a Barrier to Rights

At their best, prescription requirements aim to protect people from misuse, medical harm, and exploitation. But in practice, these laws create systemic barriers, particularly for marginalized communities, by requiring time, money, and proximity to healthcare providers simply to access medications that are safe, well understood, and often urgently needed.

This structure assumes that people cannot be trusted to manage their own care without professional oversight. But that assumption is increasingly at odds with both ethics and evidence. Many people understand the medications they rely on. They know the risks. Studies show that patients with chronic conditions often develop a high level of medication literacy and risk awareness through long-term use and counseling. And yet, they are asked to justify their needs to clinicians who may not share their urgency, or even their values. Prescription laws, in these cases, do more than inconvenience. They function as a form of medical disenfranchisement, denying individuals the right to act in their own best interest simply because they are not deemed qualified to make decisions for themselves.

Pretty sparkly pills — Image 1: An assortment of pills. Source: Yahoo Images

In the United States, prescription requirements are enforced through a legal and regulatory structure that delegates authority over medication access to licensed healthcare providers. The system is primarily governed by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) of 1938, which granted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to require certain drugs to be dispensed only by prescription. In 1951, the Durham-Humphrey Amendment formally distinguished between “prescription” (legend) drugs and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, mandating that certain medications could only be obtained with the written authorization of a licensed practitioner.

Today, the FDA, along with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and state medical boards, determines which medications require prescriptions. These typically include:

Drugs with a high potential for abuse or dependence, such as opioids
Medications with significant side effects or narrow therapeutic windows, like warfarin or lithium
- A narrow therapeutic window (or therapeutic index) means there is a small range between a drug’s effective dose and its toxic dose, making precise dosing essential to avoid under-treatment or dangerous side effects
Substances that require monitoring or diagnostic oversight, such as antidepressants, antibiotics, and hormonal therapies

For a medication to transition from prescription-only to OTC, the manufacturer must submit a New Drug Application (NDA) with evidence that average consumers can safely use the drug without a clinician’s supervision. This review process is lengthy, costly, and highly restrictive. Even well-established medications often remain prescription-only due to regulatory or political reasons, rather than clinical necessity. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has advocated since 2012 for over-the-counter access to hormonal contraception due to its safety profile, yet access remains restricted in many states due to political and regulatory inertia.

While intended as safeguards, these laws impose significant barriers, especially for people in rural areas, uninsured individuals, undocumented immigrants, and those with chronic conditions who need long-term medication access.

Access Denied: Real-World Consequences

To illustrate how this plays out, consider two examples: insulin and oral contraceptives.

Insulin, a century-old medication essential for people with diabetes, remains locked behind prescription requirements in the United States. The result is tragic: according to the American Diabetes Association, 1 in 4 Americans with diabetes has rationed insulin due to cost or access barriers. Delayed prescriptions, expired scripts, and unnecessary office visits put lives at risk—not because insulin is inherently dangerous, but because the system around it is.

Image 2: Insulin and injection supplies. Source: Yahoo Images

Now consider oral contraceptives. Major medical bodies like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the World Health Organization have long advocated for over-the-counter access to birth control, citing overwhelming evidence of safety and efficacy. Yet millions must still navigate clinical appointments, insurance requirements, or geographic isolation just to avoid an unintended pregnancy.

In both cases, prescription requirements do not enhance public safety—they undermine the right to health and self-determination. They increase cost, delay care, and disproportionately burden people with the fewest resources. These are not minor inefficiencies. They are rights violations with life-altering consequences.

Image 3: Monthly birth control pills. Source: Yahoo Images

The UDHR states in Article 25 that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including medical care and necessary social services. But health is not merely about access to care; it also includes freedom and agency.

As the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasizes, the right to health includes:

Availability: functioning healthcare services and medications
Accessibility: free from discrimination and within financial/physical reach
Acceptability: respectful of autonomy, culture, and identity
Quality: scientifically appropriate and safe

Prescription laws often fail all four. When a person cannot afford or reach a provider to refill their birth control, their care is not accessible. When a person is denied insulin because their script has expired, their treatment is not available. When gatekeeping assumes incompetence instead of encouraging informed decision-making, care becomes unacceptable in a rights-based framework.

Rethinking Risk, Rethinking Responsibility

None of this means all drugs should be available without limits. Medications with high risks of misuse, like opioids or antibiotics, require thoughtful regulation. However, the current system treats risk as a universal, rather than a spectrum. It places the burden of proof on patients rather than regulators and too often assumes incompetence by default.

We trust people to make countless risky decisions every day: driving, drinking, even refusing life-saving treatment. So why does buying an oral contraceptive or refilling a long-used insulin prescription require a professional sign-off?

A better model by human rights standards would be tiered and rights-conscious:

Expand over-the-counter and pharmacist-prescribed access for lower-risk, widely used medications
Increase public health education and harm reduction tools
Preserve professional guidance as an option, not an obstacle

This model would treat people not just as patients, but as rights-bearing agents.

Conclusion: The Right to Decide

Prescription drug laws were built with good intentions. However, when these laws block access, restrict autonomy, and exacerbate inequality, the human rights point of view holds that they must be reevaluated. Health is not just about surviving illness; it is also about having the freedom and support to shape one’s life. Access to medication is not simply a medical issue. It is a matter of freedom, equality, and dignity. The right to health also includes the right to decide. We don’t need to eliminate medical expertise, but, from a human rights perspective, we do need to stop making it the price of entry to healthcare.

Alterations to the State Department’s Human Rights Reports Threatens Global Accountability

In a move that has alarmed human rights advocates and foreign policy experts alike, the U.S. State Department is undergoing a dramatic reorganization—one that includes stripping key content from its annual human rights reports. As NPR reported on April 18, 2025, internal memos instructed staff to remove references to over 20 categories of human rights violations, including prison conditions, restrictions on freedom of assembly, political corruption, and violence against marginalized groups.

These reports have long served as a global standard, used by scholars, advocates, journalists, and international institutions to assess rights conditions worldwide. Their sudden dilution is not just bureaucratic streamlining; it’s a quiet dismantling of accountability.

Image 1: A shocked reporter holding a camera. Source: Yahoo Images.

What’s Changing—and Why It Matters

Since 1977, the U.S. Department of State has released detailed annual country reports on human rights practices. Though sometimes criticized for political inconsistency, these reports have been broadly recognized as crucial documentation of abuses across the globe—from extrajudicial killings in authoritarian states to censorship, labor exploitation, and systemic discrimination.

But under the new directive, entire categories of analysis are being erased. Sources within the department confirmed that topics such as discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, abuse of asylum seekers, and politically motivated arrests will no longer be discussed. These are not fringe issues—they reflect core violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), including:

Article 5: Protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
Article 9: Freedom from arbitrary arrest
Article 19: Freedom of expression
Article 21: Equal access to public service and fair governance
Article 2: Freedom from discrimination on any basis

When the U.S. selectively omits these rights from its assessments of other nations, it undermines the very foundation of universal human rights—that they are indivisible, interdependent, and apply to all people, everywhere.

The Chilling Effect of Omission

The most dangerous censorship is often the quietest. When a government stops discussing certain abuses, the signal to others, particularly authoritarian regimes, is clear: these violations no longer matter enough to be named.

In countries where local journalists, dissidents, or NGOs depend on international validation to draw attention to abuses, U.S. human rights reports can serve as a shield. Without public acknowledgment from a prominent diplomatic actor, local violations are easier to obscure, deny, or normalize. Human Rights Watch, for example, has long cited State Department reports as part of its advocacy efforts, particularly in places where press freedom is under threat.

This shift will also hinder asylum claims, many of which rely on credible evidence of persecution or unsafe conditions. When categories like “political persecution” or “anti-LGBTQ+ violence” are scrubbed from official reports, it becomes harder for individuals to prove their eligibility for protection under international refugee law.

Even beyond humanitarian concerns, this policy shift has strategic costs. The U.S. has historically positioned itself, however imperfectly, as a moral voice in international affairs. This voice is now compromised. Diplomats and foreign service officers will be asked to promote democratic values abroad without the backing of their own agency’s complete assessment of those values.

Former ambassador Tom Malinowski noted that this move “betrays the people in repressive countries who depend on the U.S. to tell the truth about what they’re facing”. It also gives foreign governments an easy out: why heed U.S. criticism when that criticism is suddenly partial and politically selective?

A Broader Retrenchment of Rights Infrastructure

These changes aren’t occurring in isolation. They’re part of a broader rollback. As Reuters and AP have reported, the State Department’s ongoing reorganization includes eliminating 132 offices and slashing 15% of domestic staff, with many of the cuts affecting divisions focused on human rights, democracy, and civil security.

The office of the Undersecretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights has been dissolved, with responsibilities now folded under a new, less focused Coordinator of Foreign and Humanitarian Affairs. Programs on global women’s rights, diversity and inclusion, and atrocity prevention have been defunded or absorbed into more general roles.

Image 3: People protesting for their democratic freedom. Source: Yahoo Images.

Taken together, this appears to be a conscious effort to deemphasize rights-based diplomacy at a time when such diplomacy is critical for millions of people around the world. From a human rights perspective, this shift represents a failure of positive obligation. Governments that claim leadership in human rights are not merely expected to avoid violations—they are also responsible for upholding, promoting, and defending these rights domestically and internationally.

The United States’ retreat from honest human rights reporting signals that some lives and liberties are no longer worth documenting, let alone defending. This undermines Article 1 of the UDHR itself: that all people are “endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Instead, the new approach views human rights as selective and strategic tools, rather than universal moral commitments. That’s not just an administrative shift. It’s an ideological one.

Woman with tape over her mouth — Image 4: Woman silenced with tape over her mouth. Source: Yahoo Images.

Conclusion: What Happens When the Witnesses Go Silent?

Human rights reporting isn’t just about keeping records. It’s about bearing witness, recognizing suffering, and giving people living under oppression the affirmation that they are seen. When a government as influential as the United States chooses to omit entire categories of injustice from its global reports, it effectively tells victims: “Your pain doesn’t count.”

In the long arc of justice, documentation is everything. We cannot fight abuses we refuse to name. And we cannot claim to protect rights if we edit them for convenience. If we want to live in a world where power is held accountable, the act of recording the truth must remain sacred. Otherwise, silence becomes complicity—and complicity, policy.

Water Scarcity and Initiative for Sustainability in Peru

An alarming concern continues to grow in Latin American countries regarding drinking water. Due to water being an internationally recognized human right, international human rights law makes states work towards achieving universal access to water and sanitation. The implementation of these rights involves ensuring availability, accessibility, affordability, quality, safety, and acceptability.

When water demand exceeds the supply due to scarcity caused by local ecological conditions and economic scarcity resulting from inadequate water infrastructure, we are dealing with water stress. It is a global problem, as billions of people worldwide lack access to adequate water, which affects public health, economic development, and international trade and can lead to conflict and mass migration. Moreover, as a consequence of the increased droughts, there is food insecurity, which leads to malnutrition, death in children, and an increase in infectious diseases.

The Causes of Water Stress

In Latin America, despite efforts to increase water access, 77 million people still lack access to safe water, according to the World Water Council and the National Water Commission (Comisión Nacional del Agua, in Spanish). There is a lack of treatment of sanitation waste, which leads to untreated sewage in rivers, lakes, and underground aquifers. What’s more, natural phenomena such as hurricanes and El Niño have had significant repercussions on the water sources and infrastructure of the affected countries.

In 1998, Hurricane Mitch killed 9,000 people in Central America, temporarily displacing 75% of the Honduran population. El Niño and La Niña have caused large-scale droughts and more severe storms. Furthermore, in 2020, Hurricanes Eta and Iota caused internal displacement in Guatemala. In 2023, Mexico experienced its driest year on record, while Uruguay declared a water emergency, according to the UN Development Programme. At the same time, Chile, Bogotá, and Mexico City were reported to be at risk of water depletion. Due to the progression of these phenomena, scientists believe that climate change will continue to intensify weather patterns.

Aftermath of Eta and Iota in Honduras. — Image 1: The aftermath of Eta and Iota in Honduras. Source: Yahoo Images.

Within the region, Peru has one of the lowest percentages of access to safe drinking water. Since the Amazon spans across three countries, droughts in the Amazon and other events have affected Peru. According to the UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) press release above on inequalities in access to safe drinking water in Peruvian households, the northeastern region of Loreto, Peru, is the most affected by ongoing drought, mostly impacting remote communities. There has been biodiversity loss in 22 of the country’s 26 regions due to wildfires and increasing air pollution.

Current and Future Initiatives

Because remote communities are the most affected, environmental studies and more sustainable efforts would benefit 63,000 small farmers in rural poverty who live in vulnerable ecosystems. Therefore, different projects have been developed to optimize irrigation systems and promote better water management.

Rio Seco pond in Peru. Source: Yahoo Images. — Image 2: Rio Seco Pond in Peru. Source: Yahoo Images.

One of the projects is PRO ICA (Project Pisco-Villacurí-Lanchas). The National Authority of Water requested the UN Program for Environment and UNOPS (United Nations Office for Project Services) to implement the project in El Valle de Rio Pisco (Rio Pisco Valley) and the ravine of Rio Seco (Dry River). These are located on the south coast of Peru, one of the country’s most important agricultural zones, which faces several problems with water contamination, scarcity, and supply.

To secure clean water, the Nature Conservancy (TNC) established three water funds for Lima, Piura, and Cusco. This came partnered with two pieces of legislation that established a unique, self-sustaining mechanism to fund water source protection. Its goal is to maintain the most efficient and effective natural infrastructure projects and nurture relationships with the communities that affect the conservation areas. These initiatives have been assigned to help strengthen existing initiatives such as farmers’ committees, modern irrigation proposals, productive reconversion, and habitat restoration. Over 1,600 participants, including government officials and irrigation workers, are involved in workshops to improve knowledge on subjects such as numerical modeling, groundwater hydrology, and the use of specialized equipment. As agencies of the United Nations (UN), UNEP (UN Environment Programme) and UNOPS are committed to achieving the objectives of sustainable development.

Cuenca del rio pisco — Image 3: The basin of Rio Pisco in Peru. Source: Yahoo Images.

Since mountain glaciers are melting due to climate change and the rainy season is becoming shorter, new initiatives focus on reviving pre-Incan technology. According to a BBC report, civilizations in the Los Andes Mountains had to deal with seasonal rain; therefore, they developed hydrological innovations, a strategy invented by the Huari (WAR-I), Amunas are water canals that take water from mountain streams and move it to infiltration basins. This approach allows the water to go back to the rivers that supply Lima. Therefore, having more amunas would allow for a higher supply during the dry season. Thanks to these findings, Sedapal, the water and sewage service, plans to invest $3 million in building two more water canals.

One obstacle Peru faces regarding water management is the gray areas of enforcement jurisdiction. Despite its laws to protect wetlands, actors such as the NGO Forest Trends work to define those areas by meeting with authorities and developing a manual so the locals know who the points of contact are and what to do (e.g., taking photos and GPS coordinates, harvesting plants, ensuring water flow, etc.). There is uncertainty about the recovery time for the soil, but there’s hope that the Peruvian people can help nature repair itself by using natural techniques.

Although many scientists agree that using nature-based solutions to address climate change is beneficial, critics view it as a diversion from other key conversations, such as transitioning to clean energy or reducing large-scale emissions of fossil fuels. Ultimately, initiatives that revive ancient practices are a step toward a future where we can eventually find alternatives for our energy sources and produce less pollution. A key contribution to making these initiatives happen is continuous international coordination. Many freshwater sources cross international borders, requiring cooperation among nations. As a result, collaboration, funding, and the revival of native practices could make a difference in addressing water scarcity.

Russia/Ukraine War Update Until March 3, 2025: U.S. Relations, Deals, and Human Rights Violations

Image 1: Ukrainian soldiers on a tank, holding the Ukrainian flag. Source: Yahoo Images.

On Tuesday, February 18th, Russia and the U.S. began a discussion regarding an end to the Russia/Ukraine war. Along with talk about ending the war, the two countries spoke about making improvements to their economic and diplomatic ties. Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State; Michael Waltz, U.S. President Trump’s national security advisor; Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Secretary of State; and Yuri Ushakov, President Putin’s foreign affairs advisor, were present at the meeting.

If you’re asking yourself, “Wait, isn’t there a country missing from the meeting?” You would be correct. Ukraine was not present, nor were they invited to the meeting in which the future of their state was being discussed. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy stated that Ukraine would disregard any conclusion the meeting came to, as Ukraine had not been a part of it.

Ukraine received a great deal of American support throughout the Biden Administration’s term in office. Ukraine Oversight reports and tracks funding and aid that has come from the U.S. during the time period of February 2022 until December 2024. The total amount has been $182.8 billion. Of that total $83.4 billion has been used, $57 billion is obligated but not yet distributed, $39.6 billion has been appropriated but is not obligated to be paid, and $2.7 billion has expired. Ukraine has also received aid from the U.S. and other G7 nations, which are France, Japan, Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom, in the form of a loan program that would provide $20 billion to be paid from frozen Russian assets. The website further breaks down where the money has come from. The U.S. Department of State also offers explanations and breakdowns of what the money was spent on and the aid that was sent to Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has repeatedly thanked the U.S. for the aid Ukraine has received since the invasion in 2022. In 2022, President Zelenskyy gifted the U.S. Congress with a Ukrainian war flag. He has also thanked the American people on multiple occasions, as well as stated that their money is an investment in the security and future of Ukraine and its people.

U.S. President Trump recently stated that Ukraine had three years to put a stop to this war and that they (presumably meaning Ukraine) should have never started it to begin with. As was stated in my last blog in relation to the Russia/Ukraine war, Russia started the war by invading Ukraine in 2022. Russia also previously illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. To this day Russia still occupies Crimea. While Rubio had exclaimed his excitement for the end of the war and the concept of bringing Russia and the U.S. closer together, Ukrainian forces continued to be overwhelmed by the illegal invasion of Russian troops.

If you are interested in the human rights violations that occurred in 2024 regarding the Russian Ukrainian war, check out my blog post, Russia-Ukraine War Update and Interview With Ukrainian UAB Student. For this blog I will focus on recent developments about U.S. and Ukrainian relations, Ukrainian and European relations, and human rights violations committed by Russia.

Tensions Between Ukraine and U.S. Grow

Image 2: Two soldiers hold the American flag and the Ukrainian flag. Source: Yahoo Images.

Ukraine is a land rich in critical minerals such as ilmenite, which is used in the production of titanium. The vast potential of Ukraine’s critical mineral industry has been untapped due to war and state policies. Recently, the Trump Administration proposed that U.S. companies should have access to these mining pits for ilmenite in exchange for U.S. aid in the war.

The first deal that the U.S. proposed would have Ukraine pay $500 billion worth in minerals while receiving no guarantee of security. They would receive weapons and Ukraine would have to pay a debt for generations. This agreement was rejected by President Zelenskyy on February 15th because it did not protect either Ukraine nor the country’s interests. In an AP article, they talk of Ukrainians’ feelings of unease at the prospects of U.S. businesses on their land. Many people felt that too much would be given away in exchange for weapons.

The second agreement that was drawn up stated that Ukraine would give 50% of its entire revenue on natural resources into a fund. This fund would then be used to invest in projects in Ukraine. As of now, the projects that would be funded are not defined in the agreement and will be further defined in later discussions. This agreement still does not guarantee the security of Ukraine.

The success of this agreement would have been determined in part by the success of private investment in Ukraine’s mineral resources. The ongoing war and reconstruction of Ukrainian infrastructure could hinder investment into the mining of these minerals. With no outlines for Ukraine security, mining companies are hesitant about investing in the country. Mining is an extremely expensive industry, and with the threat of Russian attacks, it is extremely unlikely that a corporation would risk investing in Ukraine.

This new agreement was going to be discussed in person between President Zelenskyy, who traveled to the U.S. on February 28th, 2025, and President Trump. However, during the meeting, not much was able to be said as President Trump, who was seated next to Vice President J.D. Vance, yelled at Ukraine’s President. The mineral agreement was not signed, as was originally intended, during that meeting.

Ukraine has been struggling against Russian forces for three years. Comments made by U.S. defense secretary, Pete Hegseth that Ukraine must give up hope of regaining its territory or getting NATO membership, have poured salt on wounds that have not been given time to heal in the last three years. Ukrainians have been worried over the position they will be left in after a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine is decided.

For years, the overall Western consensus has been that no agreement will come at the cost of Ukrainians still living in places now occupied by Russia. That viewpoint may now be changing in the United States, and Ukraine and other nations located close to Russia fear that a break in the war will allow Russia’s military to regroup and potentially invade Ukraine again as well as other parts of Europe.

European Nations Uniting

Image 3: Stairway with Ukrainian flag painted on the walls. Source: Yahoo Images.

On Sunday, March 2, 2025, the leaders of Ukraine, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Canada, Finland, Sweden, France, the Czech Republic, Romania, and Britain, as well as the Turkish Foreign Minister, attended a meeting about Ukraine at London’s Lancaster House. This was done in a show of support for Ukraine. During the meeting, the leaders agreed that it was in everyone’s interest that defense efforts be expanded so that peace could finally be accomplished for Ukraine.

It is worth noting that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer still said that the support of the U.S. was critical for this plan to work. In other words, while Europe must be at the forefront of Ukraine’s defense, the U.S. must back the rest of Europe for the defense to work.

While Europe is attempting to support and back Ukraine, on March 3, 2025, U.S. President Trump officially paused all military aid to Ukraine in hope of pressuring President Zelenskyy into negotiating peace talks with Russia. These peace talks, if rushed, will most likely give Russia the upper hand and negate any hope Ukraine has had for regaining the Ukrainian land that is currently occupied by Russia.

Russia’s Continued Human Rights Violations

Image 4: Ukrainian flag standing over a destroyed building. Source: Yahoo Images.

Amnesty International stated that any peace talks that do not include justice and repercussions for the international laws violations and human rights violations that have occurred against Ukraine will only serve to prolong Ukrainian suffering. Throughout the three years that Russia has been invading Ukraine, Russia has continued to target civilian infrastructure.

Residential buildings, schools, cultural heritage sites, and hospitals are some of the civilian infrastructure that has been destroyed by Russian forces. In my previous blog about the war, I wrote that the summer of 2024 was the deadliest time for children in Ukraine. Children are the most vulnerable members of society. Russia’s disregard for the lives of Ukrainian civilians, specifically children, is a violation of human rights. Since the invasion of Ukraine, thousands of schools have either been destroyed or have fallen under the control of Russia.

During Russia’s occupation of Crimea, people have been convicted of discrediting Russian armed forces, which violates the right to freedom of expression. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that all people have the freedom of opinion and expression. When those freedoms are interfered with, it is a violation of human rights. Crimean Tatars who are imprisoned have also been denied medical care. Additionally, 6,000 prisoners of war (POW) continue to be detained by Russian forces. POW and civilians alike have been subject to torture. In the year of 2024, Russia charged at least 120 Ukrainian POWs with terrorism. Since then, they have all been executed.

It is estimated that, as of July 2024, 14,000 Ukrainian citizens had been wrongfully and unlawfully detained by Russia. There are reports of war crimes and crimes against humanity being inflicted on Ukrainian civilians. These offenses include torture, sexual violence, extrajudicial killings, and denials of fair trials. In Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), it is stated that torture or inhuman punishment is a violation of human rights.

Many Ukrainian civilians have been subject to arbitrary arrest, and over 50,000 Ukrainians have been reported missing. Arbitrary arrest is the unlawful arrest and detainment of a person by a government without due process. Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that arbitrary arrest, exiles, and detentions are human rights violations.

In places occupied by Russia, 1.6 million Ukrainian children must attend schools, learn the curriculum, and abide by the rules of invaders, where Ukrainian children are deprived of learning their language, cultural heritage, and history. If students are to continue their Ukrainian education, they must do so online. This is in violation of Article 26 of the UDHR, which pertains to the right to education and the parents choice of their child’s education and Article 27 of the UDHR, which states that people have the right to participate in the cultural life of the community.

Conclusion:

As is stated in my last blog about the Russia and Ukraine war, there are a couple of things you can do to help defend human rights in this situation. The U.N. Refugee Agency and the Ukrainian Red Cross Society continue to send humanitarian aid to Ukraine. If you are able and willing, these sites take donations.

You can also help protect human rights by staying informed and reading reliable sources. Disinformation on Ukraine and Russia has run rampant, and when people turn a blind eye to the truth, it is easy for human rights violations to go on unchecked. Updates on the Ukraine and Russia war are occurring daily. Make sure to continue checking for updates and to keep yourself informed.

Navigating the Impact of NIH Cancer Research Funding Cuts

In early 2025, the U.S. biomedical research community faced significant changes due to substantial reductions in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), particularly affecting cancer research. These developments have sparked widespread discussion among scientists, healthcare professionals, policymakers, and the public. This blog will aim to provide a balanced examination of the recent NIH funding cuts, their implications for cancer research, and the broader context surrounding these decisions.

Understanding the NIH Funding Reductions

The NIH, a cornerstone of U.S. medical research, has traditionally supported a vast array of studies, including those focused on cancer. In 2025, the administration implemented significant budgetary changes, notably reducing indirect cost reimbursements for research institutions from an average of 60% to a capped rate of 15%. Indirect costs cover essential expenses such as facility maintenance, utilities, and administrative support, which are crucial for the everyday operations of research labs.

These adjustments were part of a broader initiative led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk, aiming to streamline federal spending. The administration projected that these cuts would save approximately $4 billion annually. While fiscal responsibility is important, the abrupt nature of these changes has raised questions about the potential risks to the nation’s biomedical infrastructure.

Implications for Cancer Research

Cancer research is an area where sustained investment has historically led to life-saving innovations. Advances in immunotherapy, targeted drug therapies, and precision medicine have dramatically improved survival rates for several types of cancer. However, these breakthroughs result from years of incremental research, often supported by NIH grants.

The reductions in NIH support have led to concerns about the future of ongoing studies, the initiation of new projects, and the overall momentum in the fight against cancer. Institutions like the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) have expressed apprehension that these funding cuts could delay the development of new therapies and hinder access to clinical trials, especially in underserved communities. Moreover, the potential slowdown in research progress raises concerns about the long-term impact on patient outcomes and the country’s ability to maintain its leadership in biomedical innovation.

Additionally, early-phase research, which often carries the highest risk but also the most potential for groundbreaking discoveries, is especially vulnerable to funding cuts. Many of these projects rely on public funding because they cannot have private investment yet. Without sufficient support, promising leads may never get the chance to be explored.

Economic and Workforce Considerations

Beyond the scientific implications, the funding reductions have economic ramifications. Research institutions across the country rely on NIH grants not only for scientific purposes but also as a large source of employment. The cuts have led to hiring freezes, layoffs, and a general sense of uncertainty within the research community.

Early-career scientists, in particular, face challenges in securing positions and funding, potentially leading to a decline in talent ranging from academics to industry or even other sectors. This shift could have long-term effects on the innovation pipeline and the diversity of research perspectives. The potential loss of highly trained researchers might also compromise the quality of mentorship available to future generations of scientists.

Legal and Political Responses

The funding changes have prompted legal actions and political debates. A coalition of 22 states filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that the abrupt changes to NIH funding policies could jeopardize critical research and violate administrative procedures.

In Congress, reactions have been mixed. Some lawmakers have voiced strong opposition to the cuts, emphasizing the importance of sustained investment in medical research. Others have supported the administration’s efforts to reduce federal spending, highlighting the need for fiscal responsibility. The political discourse that’s happening reflects a broader national conversation about the balance between economic efficiency and public investment in science.

People researching in a lab — Image 2: Researchers working in a science lab. Source: Yahoo! Images

International Context and Competitiveness

Another dimension of the funding debate involves the global landscape of cancer research. The United States has long been a leader in biomedical innovation, attracting top talent from around the world. However, as other countries increase their investments in science and technology, funding instability in the U.S. could lead to a shift in the global research balance.

Nations like China, Germany, and South Korea have been expanding their research funding, particularly in emerging areas like gene editing and personalized medicine. Reduced NIH funding could make the U.S. less competitive in these fields, potentially leading to fewer international collaborations and a decline in scientific influence.

Historical Precedents and Lessons

This is not the first time NIH funding has faced uncertainty. Historical data shows that flat or declining NIH budgets have correlated with decreased research productivity and fewer grant applications being funded. During the budget sequestration of 2013, many research projects were delayed or canceled, and similar consequences are anticipated in the wake of the 2025 cuts.

However, the scientific community has also shown resilience. Philanthropic organizations, private foundations, and public-private partnerships have started stepping in to fill funding gaps. For example, the Cancer Moonshot initiative, launched in 2016, allowed both government and private resources to accelerate research. Examples like this may become increasingly important in the future.

Patient Perspectives and Public Engagement

From the perspective of patients and advocacy groups, the funding cuts represent not just a policy shift but a personal concern. Many patients rely on cutting-edge treatments developed through NIH-supported research. Delays in trials or the discontinuation of research programs could directly impact access to new therapies.

Public engagement has become a critical component of the response to the cuts. Grassroots campaigns, petitions, and awareness events have emerged to advocate for restored funding. Organizations like the American Cancer Society and Stand Up To Cancer have mobilized supporters to contact legislators and raise public awareness about the stakes involved.

Looking Ahead: Balancing Efficiency and Innovation

The recent NIH funding cuts show the complex interplay between government policy and scientific advancement. While efforts to streamline government spending are a legitimate aspect of public administration, it’s essential to consider the possible long-term consequences of these actions on critical areas like cancer research.

As the nation navigates these changes, continuing conversations among stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, patients, and the public, is necessary to ensure that the U.S. continues encouraging innovation while maintaining fiscal prudence. Collaborative funding models, greater transparency in policy decisions, and increased support for early-career researchers should ideally all play a role in adapting to the new funding landscape.

Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that scientific progress continues and that the U.S. remains a major player in cancer research and healthcare innovation.

Children’s Shows Today: Their Impact on Child Development and Behavior

Overview

Children’s television shows have a big influence on how young children learn and behave in a time when digital media permeates every aspect of daily life. Both positive and negative consequences can result from the content children consume, ranging from social skills and cognitive development to emotional regulation and moral development. It is crucial to look at how these shows affect young audiences in both positive and possibly negative ways as programming keeps changing to include new themes and methods of education. 

Image 1: Young boy watching television. Source: Yahoo! Images

The Evolution of Children’s Programming 

Over the past few decades, children’s television has undergone substantial changes. The foundation for media aimed at teaching literacy, social skills, and emotional intelligence was established by conventional educational shows such as Sesame Street and Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. These programs’ emphasis on realistic relationships, slow-paced storytelling, and likable characters made it possible for young viewers to learn things in an entertaining yet developmentally appropriate way. 

Children’s programming nowadays comes in various forms, such as interactive series, educational cartoons, stories with an adventure theme, and content that is only available on streaming services. As digital platforms like Netflix, Disney+, and YouTube Kids have grown in popularity, kids now have more access to content than ever before. Although this accessibility opens new avenues for enjoyment and education, it also brings up issues with screen time, the suitability of the content, and the long-term consequences of digital consumption. 

Positive Impacts of Children’s Shows 

Cognitive and Language Development  

A lot of children’s programs are made with learning objectives in mind. Storytelling, problem-solving, and language development are all incorporated into shows like Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood, Bluey, and Dora the Explorer. According to research, preschool-aged children can benefit from well-structured educational programs that help them detect patterns, develop critical thinking skills, and improve their language skills. Asking questions and waiting for answers are examples of interactive components that promote active engagement as opposed to passive viewing. 

Social and Emotional Learning  

Children’s shows often cover concepts like cooperation, empathy, and conflict resolution. While Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood specifically teaches emotional regulation techniques through songs and relevant scenarios, Paw Patrol and Doc McStuffins are examples of programs that show teamwork and problem-solving. Children may benefit from these components as they learn to manage their own emotions and social situations. 

Cultural Awareness and Diversity  

Diverse cultures, languages, and family patterns are being reflected in modern children’s programs. Children are exposed to diverse customs and viewpoints through shows like Elena of Avalor and Molly of Denali, which promote inclusivity and deepen their awareness of the world. These programs encourage tolerance and open-mindedness in young viewers by exposing them to a range of experiences and backgrounds. 

Encouragement of Creativity and Imagination  

Imagination and artistic expression can be fostered by the storytelling, music, and creative problem-solving emphasized in many children’s shows. Children may think creatively outside the screen, thanks to shows like Peppa Pig and Curious George, which promote curiosity, exploration, and imaginative play. 

Potential Negative Effects of Children’s Shows 

Screen Time and Passive Consumption  

Excessive screen time is one of the biggest issues with children’s television. Children between the ages of two and five should not spend more than an hour a day on high-quality screens. Long-term use of screens can lead to problems regulating concentration, sleep issues, and decreased physical activity. The advantages of educational programs may also be limited by passive consumption, in which kids watch without actively participating or absorbing the content. 

Behavioral Imitation and Aggression  

Fast-paced action scenes, exaggerated facial expressions, or even mild hostility are all part of the narrative of several children’s television programs. Although many shows aim to teach morality and problem-solving skills, some topics may unintentionally encourage impulsive action. According to studies, kids who often watch fast-paced, action-packed television may be more aggressive or have trouble controlling their impulses than kids who watch informative, slower-paced programs. 

Commercialization and Consumerism  

Extensive merchandising, ranging from toys and apparel to branded snacks, is associated with many well-known children’s programs. Early brand loyalty is fostered by the frequent appearance of characters from popular television series like Paw Patrol and Frozen on a variety of consumer goods. As children may form strong brand preferences as a result of media exposure, this may encourage imaginative play but also may raise worries about materialism and the commercialization of childhood. 

Unrealistic Expectations and Stereotyping  

Even though they are entertaining, certain children’s television shows could encourage irrational expectations about relationships, achievement, and life. Certain programs may subtly reinforce preconceptions through gender-specific roles, idealized character depictions, or overstated problem resolutions. When it comes to helping kids think critically about what they watch and promoting conversations about the implications for real life, parents and other adults play an important part. 

The Role of Parents and Caregivers 

Given the possible advantages and disadvantages of children’s programming, parental participation is still crucial to maximizing the beneficial effects and reducing the negative ones. Some tips for consuming media responsibly are: 

Co-Viewing and Discussion. Watching programs with children allows caregivers to explain concepts, answer questions, and reinforce positive messages. Discussing themes and moral lessons can deepen understanding and encourage critical thinking. 

Setting Limits on Screen Time. Establishing boundaries for television and digital device use ensures that children engage in a balanced mix of activities, including physical play, reading, and social interactions. 

Selecting High-Quality Content.Choosing age-appropriate, educationally enriching programs can enhance learning experiences. Platforms like PBS Kids and Sesame Workshop offer well-researched content that aligns with developmental needs. 

Encouraging Active Engagement.Rather than passive viewing, caregivers can promote active engagement by asking children about what they watched, encouraging them to reenact stories, or relating on-screen lessons to real-life situations. 

Conclusion 

Children’s television shows continue to significantly impact the behavior and development of young viewers. Excessive screen time and exposure to inappropriate content can be problematic, while well-designed programs can promote learning, creativity, and social-emotional development. Parents who actively participate and establish a balance between education and fun can help children benefit from media use in a constructive and developmentally appropriate way. Supporting the upcoming generation of young viewers will require constant research and careful content creation as technology and storytelling continue to advance. 

Marriage, Inequality, and Human Rights: Rethinking a Cultural Norm 

As a philosophy student, I find the debate around marriage fascinating because it’s something almost everyone has personal experience with—whether through their own relationships, family, or society at large. On the surface, marriage might seem like a simple institution built on love and commitment, but when we dig deeper, we start to see cracks in its foundation. 

Marriage has long been regarded as a cornerstone of social life, providing structure for intimate relationships, legal benefits, and a framework for raising children. But as legal scholars and human rights advocates have increasingly pointed out, marriage also functions as a gatekeeper to economic security, legal protections, and social recognition—and it does not serve everyone equally. This raises serious ethical questions: Does marriage reinforce systemic inequality, particularly for women and non-traditional families? Is it time to reform, replace, or abandon it altogether? In this blog, we’ll explore three contemporary philosophical arguments about marriage and their implications for justice and human rights. 

Susan Okin: Marriage Makes Women Vulnerable

Susan Okin argues that marriage, as it exists today, creates and reinforces gender-based vulnerabilities, particularly for women. In Vulnerability by Marriage, she explores how society expects women to take on most of the caregiving responsibilities, which leads to an unfair division of labor both at home and in the workplace.  

According to the American Time Use Survey by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2022, women spent an average of 2.4 hours per day on household activities, compared to 1.5 hours for men. Women were also far more likely to provide unpaid caregiving for children and elderly family members. Even in so-called egalitarian households, studies show that men’s careers tend to take priority, affecting decisions about where to live and how to divide time and resources. 

A woman overwhelmed during a tense office meeting. Her head is down and people are yelling at her. — Image 2: An overwhelming woman in a workplace. Source: Yahoo Images.

These patterns have real economic consequences. Women who step back from paid work to care for children often experience long-term wage penalties and loss of retirement savings. After divorce, the gender wealth gap becomes even more stark. A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that women’s household income fell by 41% after divorce, compared to just 23% for men. 

Okin’s critique points to a larger human rights issue: economic dependency can limit women’s autonomy and political participation. Without systemic support, such as paid parental leave, subsidized childcare, or equitable divorce laws, marriage remains a structural disadvantage for many women. 

Laurie Shrage: Should the State Be Involved in Marriage at All?

In her piece, The End of Marriage, Laurie Shrage takes Okin’s critique even further. Rather than just reforming marriage to be more equitable, she questions the role of the State in structuring intimate relationships. Shrage argues that marriage, as a state-sanctioned institution, provides legal and social privileges to some relationships while marginalizing others. If you’re married, you get tax breaks, easier access to healthcare, and legal rights over your partner’s well-being. But what about people in non-traditional relationships, cohabiting partners, or polyamorous families that don’t fit into the legal mold? 

Consider this: The U.S. Government Accountability Office identified 1,138 federal statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. But for unmarried partners—even those in long-term caregiving relationships—those same protections are often unavailable. This creates a system of legal exclusion that disproportionately affects LGBTQ+ individuals, lower-income families, and those outside traditional family structures. 

Shrage does not argue that the state should entirely remove itself from intimate relationships. Instead, she believes the law should be restructured so that protections and benefits are not solely tied to marriage. Instead of privileging marriage, we could develop alternative legal structures that support all kinds of caregiving relationships without requiring people to fit into a specific mold. Some states have made attempts to implement this. For instance, Colorado’s Designated Beneficiary Agreements allow individuals to assign rights such as hospital visitation or inheritance without marriage. Yet these reforms are patchwork and often limited in scope. 

Scissors cutting through a marriage contract — Image 3: Restructuring the Institute of Marriage. Source: Yahoo Images.

Shrage’s argument forces us to rethink what marriage actually does. If it’s primarily about securing legal and financial benefits, then why should it be tied to romantic relationships at all? Shouldn’t anyone be able to create binding legal partnerships that reflect their chosen family structures? Shrage proposes an alternative: decoupling legal benefits from marital status. Legal agreements could allow individuals to designate financial partners, medical proxies, or co-parents without needing a state-sanctioned marriage. By ensuring equal access to legal protections regardless of relationship type, we could create a system that better serves the diverse ways people build their lives together. 

Claudia Card: Tear It All Down

While Okin and Shrage suggest ways to reform or restructure marriage, Claudia Card takes a more radical approach in Against Marriage and Motherhood. She argues that marriage is not merely flawed but fundamentally coercive—and often serves as a mechanism for control and abuse. 

One of Card’s most powerful arguments is that marriage can trap individuals in violent or exploitative relationships. Because marriage is a legal contract that binds two people together, leaving an abusive marriage often requires legal intervention—something that can be expensive, slow, and emotionally exhausting. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey by the CDC, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men have experienced severe intimate partner violence. Due to financial dependency and legal entanglement, many people find it difficult to leave abusive marriages. A 2020 study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that economic abuse, like controlling access to money or employment, was a key barrier to leaving. In many cases, the legal system inadvertently works to sustain abusive relationships by making it harder for the abused partner to leave, which is the fundamental reason why Card believes marriage, in any form, is beyond repair.   

A sad child looks at the camera as her distressed parents sit behind her — Image 4: A visual representation of the harms marriage can bring. Source: Yahoo Images.

Additionally, Card critiques the cultural glorification of motherhood. While motherhood is often idealized, mothers in the U.S. face one of the highest unpaid caregiving burdens in the developed world. The U.S. is the only wealthy country without guaranteed paid maternity leave. Women, especially single mothers, are left to shoulder the costs of caregiving without adequate support, leading to heightened rates of poverty, stress, and burnout. 

Card’s radical proposal—to abolish marriage as a legal institution—calls for building new social structures based on mutual care and autonomy rather than control and dependency. From a human rights standpoint, her argument challenges us to rethink whether any institution should have the power to limit freedom, security, or self-determination.

Where Do We Go From Here?

In philosophy, we often come back to the same fundamental question: Should we work within the system to make it more just, or should we tear it down and start over? Okin, Shrage, and Card each offer different visions for the future of marriage, but they all agree on one thing—the way things are now isn’t working. 

At its core, the debate about marriage is a human rights issue. Who gets access to economic security, legal protections, and social recognition—and at what cost? And marriage laws don’t just reinforce inequality for adults; they also impact vulnerable populations in ways we rarely acknowledge. For example, child marriage remains legal in parts of the U.S.—a reality that raises serious ethical concerns. 

Our three authors all highlight different ways in which marriage has historically marginalized certain groups, particularly women, and ask us to consider alternative frameworks that promote justice and equality. Whether through reforming marriage, removing state involvement, or abandoning it altogether, the goal should be to ensure that all individuals—regardless of their relationship status—have equal rights, protection, and autonomy. As we continue to challenge traditional norms, we must prioritize human dignity, fairness, and inclusivity in the ways we structure relationships and social institutions. 

Human Rights Concerns at Tesla’s Texas Gigafactory

Overview

The Austin, Texas-based Tesla Gigafactory is regarded as a pillar of innovation, pushing the boundaries in sustainable production and economic expansion. However, serious human rights issues have emerged behind the news of economic revival and technical advancement. These problems, which range from claims of discrimination and labor exploitation to infractions of workplace safety, expose a concerning aspect of Tesla’s operations. As a leader in renewable energy and technology, Tesla needs to maintain ethical business standards in its establishments, particularly as public scrutiny increases. 

Workplace Safety Concerns 

Workplace safety is one of the Gigafactory’s most urgent human rights issues. After discovering that four employees at the Austin site had been exposed to dangerous chemicals without the appropriate training or safety precautions, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) penalized Tesla close to $7,000 in November 2024. Hexavalent chromium, an extremely hazardous material that can cause cancer, damage to the kidneys, and serious respiratory problems, was being handled by the workers. OSHA claims that workers in the Cybertruck body area were exposed to significant health hazards because they lacked the necessary training to handle hazardous materials. 

Apart from this offense, Tesla is also being investigated for the August 2024 worker death that was recorded at the facility. Even though the incident’s specifics are unknown until OSHA’s investigation is finished, it raises more concerns about the factory’s safety procedures and supervision. This is not an isolated problem for Tesla; the firm has been repeatedly criticized for its record on workplace safety in several locations, which suggests a systemic issue. 

Employee reports present a worrisome image. Workers have complained that safety instruction is either hurried or superficial, with little focus on long-term precautions. Some believe that speed and output are given precedence over worker safety due to Tesla’s focus on increasing production for vehicles such as the Cybertruck. This conflict between safety and efficiency draws attention to a crucial area where Tesla’s company operations deviate from ethical standards. 

Wage Theft and Exploitation 

Widespread criticism has also been directed at labor violations that occurred during the Texas Gigafactory development. A Texas-based nonprofit group called the Workers Defense Project complained to the U.S. Department of Labor in November 2022 on behalf of construction workers employed at the facility. According to the allegations, employees were sometimes not paid at all and were not paid for overtime. Contractors are also accused of giving employees phony safety training certifications, which essentially left them unprepared for the dangers they encountered on the job site. 

These labor violations reflect a larger problem with supply chain management at Tesla. Tesla indirectly supports exploitative activities by using subcontractors who compromise workers’ protections. Under the possibility of losing their jobs, construction workers, many of whom are immigrants, said they felt pressured into dangerous working conditions. In addition to breaking labor regulations, such actions also go against fundamental human rights values, which place an emphasis on treating employees fairly and with dignity. 

The problem is made worse by the contractors’ lack of responsibility. Employees who tried to report dangerous working conditions or wage fraud frequently faced retaliation or disregard. This cycle of exploitation shows how urgently Tesla must strengthen its oversight of its contractors to guarantee compliance with ethical standards and labor laws. 

Environmental Hazards and Worker Safety 

Although the Austin Gigafactory’s environmental practices have come under fire, Tesla’s dedication to sustainability is a fundamental component of its brand identity. There were rumors in November 2024 that a broken furnace door had exposed the facility’s employees to temperatures as high as 100 degrees Fahrenheit. According to reports, this problem lasted for months as Model Y manufacturing ramped up, seriously affecting worker comfort and safety. 

Additionally, Tesla was accused by a whistleblower of manipulating furnace operations to pass emissions tests. This manipulation prompted wider environmental concerns in addition to putting workers at risk of exposure to dangerous pollutants. Tesla’s public pledge to sustainability and environmental responsibility is compromised when it uses unethical means to satisfy regulatory requirements. 

These environmental risks exacerbate an already difficult and, at times, dangerous work environment for employees. Reports of excessive temperatures, chemical fume exposure, and insufficient ventilation reveal a pattern of carelessness that endangers workers. In addition to harming employees, these circumstances damage Tesla’s standing as a leader in environmentally friendly technology. 

Image 2: Tesla car production factory. Source: Yahoo! Images

Allegations of (Potential) Racial Discrimination 

Claims of racial discrimination have also sparked criticism of Tesla’s workplace culture. Although its facility in Fremont, California, has received a lot of attention, its challenges are representative of larger issues that could affect its operations in Texas. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Tesla in September 2023, claiming that Black workers at the Fremont facility experienced widespread racial harassment. The lawsuit described instances of graffiti, racial epithets, and a toxic workplace where complaints were frequently disregarded. Workers who reported such instances were subject to retribution, which included negative employment changes and terminations. 

Even though these claims are specific to Tesla’s California plant, they raise important concerns about the company’s work environment and whether the Texas Gigafactory is engaging in similar activities. According to reports from former workers, Tesla’s leadership has had difficulty addressing concerns of equity and inclusivity within the company. Such claims reveal a stark discrepancy between a company’s internal procedures and public image, which is concerning for a forward-thinking business. 

Broader Implications for Human Rights 

The human rights violations at Tesla’s Gigafactory in Texas are not isolated events; rather, they are a part of a wider trend of unethical behavior by the business. Communities like Austin have benefited economically from Tesla’s quick growth and innovation-focused approach, but worker safety, ethical labor standards, and environmental responsibility shouldn’t be sacrificed for these advantages. 

Furthermore, the significance of Tesla’s actions is increased by its influence. Being one of the most well-known businesses in the world, Tesla sets the standard for how big businesses can balance innovation and morality. Tesla runs the danger of damaging its reputation and alienating both staff and customers if it doesn’t sufficiently address these human rights issues. 

Steps Toward Ethical Practices 

Tesla must take swift action to change the way it operates and address these concerns. First and foremost, the business needs to make a stronger commitment to workplace safety by putting in place comprehensive training programs and making sure that all workers, whether they are contracted or directly employed, have enough protection. Regular audits are part of this to find and fix safety hazards before they can cause harm. 

Labor practices also need to see substantial reform. Tesla needs to hold contractors accountable for wage theft and other violations by implementing stricter oversight mechanisms. Ensuring that workers are paid fairly and on time is not just a legal obligation, but a moral imperative. 

Environmental responsibility must be prioritized as well. Tesla’s innovative reputation relies on its commitment to sustainability, and this should extend to its factory operations. Adhering to environmental regulations and maintaining transparency in emissions testing are important steps toward rebuilding trust. 

Finally, fostering an inclusive workplace culture is essential for addressing allegations of discrimination. Tesla would benefit from establishing clear channels for employees to report harassment and discrimination without fear of retaliation. Regular training on diversity and inclusion can also help create a more equitable environment for all workers. 

Conclusion 

These major concerns at Tesla’s Texas Gigafactory are a sobering reminder of the ethical challenges accompanying rapid industrial growth. From workplace safety violations to wage theft and allegations of discrimination, these issues stress the gaps in Tesla’s operations that demand immediate attention. Given its influence, Tesla has a unique opportunity to set an example for ethical corporate practices. 

By addressing these concerns head-on, Tesla can ensure that its growth benefits its bottom line and the workers and communities contributing to its success. Ultimately, the true measure of Tesla’s impact will be its technological achievements and its commitment to upholding the fundamental rights and dignity of its workforce. 

Rise of Right-Wing Populism in Germany’s Elections

On February 23, 2025, Germany held its federal snap elections, where it sought to reestablish stability in the parliament following the collapse of the previous government coalition. The results triggered global concern as Alternative for Germany (AfD), the country’s far-right party, finished second place, securing roughly 20% of the total vote and 152 parliamentary seats. Though the AfD will likely lack sizable influence within the parliament, unable to form a coalition and secure a majority, its rise in popularity prompts concern due to the party’s extremist ideology and questionable ties with the infamous Nazi Party. This electoral success also warrants discussion due to the impact wealth inequality played in achieving this second-place finish. Furthermore, AfD’s astonishing success aligns with a shift towards conservatism and democratic backsliding throughout Europe and the world.

Image 1: The AfD logo. Source: Yahoo Images

Understanding the Election Results

In a parliamentary system, a party’s presence in government tends to be directly tied to its popularity in an election, with seat allotment being proportional to the percentage of votes received. As Germany’s parliament has 630 seats, holding 316 is necessary to have a majority. However, due to the number of parties, it’s unlikely that one party will achieve over 50% of the vote, resulting in the formation of coalitions to meet this threshold. This method of governing allows more parties to have a voice in the government, therefore being more representative of its constituents; however, it can also lead to gridlock if coalitions cannot be created.

Parliamentary systems reflect the political sentiment of a given time, making the shocking rise in the AfD much more apparent and concerning. The recent election saw the platform nearly double its support from the 2021 election, receiving 152 seats in parliament, totaling 20% of the vote, and granting them a second-place finish. Regardless of its sudden peak in popularity, its vast list of controversies will likely prohibit the party from holding consistent power within parliament, unable to form a coalition, though efforts have been made in the past by moderate parties to work together on stricter immigration policies.

The incumbent party, the Union Parties (CDU/CSU), garnered 28.6% of the vote, which is represented by its share of 208 seats. Though it still finished first, its former coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), saw a dip in support, achieving only 16% of the votes, or 120 seats. Interestingly, this election saw an astonishingly high voter turnout of 82.5%, the highest it has been since the reunification of East and West Germany in 1990, highlighting the universal feeling of importance surrounding this election. Similarly, while one in five Germans voted for the AfD, almost 70% of voters view the party as a threat to democracy, implying a huge divide between the group’s supporters and its opposition. Between the high turnout and the division in AfD support, it is clear that many German citizens viewed this to be a critical election.

AfD poster. On the top is the German parliament building. Underneath reads "Our country, our rules" in German over a blue background. — Image 2: An AfD political campaign poster reading “Our Country, Our Rules.” Source: Yahoo Images

AfD Ideology and Actions

The AfD is home to traditionally conservative and undemocratic policies, having questionable ties to Germany’s infamous Nazi Party. Regarding policy, the AfD is largely centered around nationalistic ideals and nativist ideology. Leading up to the 2025 election, AfD party member Alice Weidel declared that, if voted as chancellor, she would support a remigration program, a large-scale, forceful return of immigrants to their native countries. This message was furthered through their use of Nazi-reminiscent advertisements, which exclusively depicted native German people and encouraged heterosexual German couples to have children in the hopes of returning to a true native populace. These advertisements have also been criticized for their advocacy of traditional gender roles and family values and for reinstating the idea of German purity.

However, concerns around the AfD go far beyond policy, as the party has held questionable views regarding the country’s Nazi past. A big objective led by the AfD and its supporters has been to demolish the firewall, a term referring to the open condemnation and banning of Nazi-affiliated slogans, symbols, and gestures. Ending this societal norm would further the party’s aim to place less societal focus on the Holocaust and, in turn, remove structures that punish those who use harmful language. This would benefit AfD leaders: In 2017, an AfD party official was fined for using the Nazi-era phrase “Everything for Germany” during a speech. Later on, this same official called the Berlin Holocaust Memorial a “monument of shame,” arguing that the country needs to completely change how it remembers its past. Similarly, Weidel has referred to Holocaust remembrance as a “cult of shame,” a phrase often used by Holocaust deniers and anti-semites to diminish memorialization efforts.

What is further concerning is that international supporters have supported the party’s mission to distance Germany from its past. In the run-up to the 2025 elections, Elon Musk spoke at an AfD rally where he encouraged the country to end its period of guilt. He told the audience to “be proud of German culture” and not to “lose that in some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything.” United States Vice President JD Vance shared a similar sentiment at the Munich Security Council, stating that “there is no room for firewalls” with free speech. Not only have these efforts resulted in a return to Nazi-era rhetoric and rejection of the past, but it has also led to the sharing of misinformation. In an interview with Elon Musk, Weidel touted that Hitler “wasn’t a conservative” and that “he was a communist, socialist guy,” despite his recorded hatred of communism and its supporters. As the party and its supporters –both foreign and domestic– continue to push back against firewall practices, Germany could see a return to the use of Nazi-era rhetoric and blooming ignorance regarding its history, a future that could put the current state of democracy in the country at risk.

The common thread between these policies and ideology is that they all aim to reinstate national pride in German culture at the expense of inclusivity and diversity, which have been fought for since the aftermath of World War II. This allows for the normalization of nativism, along with placing nationalism and conservatism back into the mainstream.

German protestors march carrying a sign that reads "Bjorn Hocke (an AfD politician) Is A Nazi". — Image 3: Protestors declare “Bjorn Hocke (an AfD politician) Is A Nazi.” Source: Yahoo Images

Impacts of Wealth Inequality

A myriad of factors could have contributed to the AfD’s sudden rise, one of which was national wealth inequality, specifically the divide between former East and West Germany. During the reunification of these territories in 1990, East Germany, a former communist society, struggled to adapt to the economy of the West due to its use of outdated technology and reliance on heavy industry. Because of this, many East Germans lacked the necessary training to work in a more modern society, entering this period of unification by losing their jobs and struggling to find new opportunities. The impacts of this are still being felt over 30 years later, as former West Germans on average hold double the amount of wealth as their East German counterparts. This divide is no longer just economic; it is now political. Recent election maps show that AfD was the popular choice in the vast majority of former East German states. This region has also recently helped the party clench its first state-level position in 2024, showing the rapid growth in the AfD over the recent years.

This development is not unique to Germany, as it has been shown that increased wealth inequality positively influences the popularity of right-wing populist ideology. As Equality Trust explains, extreme wealth inequality can lead to an erosion of trust in democratic institutions and politicians, likely influenced by feelings of deprivation and isolation. As inequality rises, these emotions become more commonly felt as populations feel excluded from society, drawing people towards populist parties on both sides of the political spectrum. This would explain why, in the case of Germany, the Left Party also saw an increase in popularity throughout the East. Furthermore, it has been found that a one-unit increase in income inequality almost directly translates to increased support for populist parties. Similarly, a small increase in wealth inequality can have a moderate impact on institutional trust, meaning that even small raises in national wealth disparity can have larger impacts on citizen approval in democratic institutions. This can influence what candidates are chosen and explain why it seems many people are turning towards anti-establishment, nationalistic politicians. While this tendency towards right-wing populism normally occurs when coupled with prior feelings of nationalism and political paranoia, increasing gaps between the wealthy and poorer segments of society can push people to support more extremist right-wing factions. This realization could help explain how the AfD has quickly risen to the mainstream and why such large voting differences occurred between former East and West Germany.

Conclusion

Between the party’s Nazi-reminiscent rhetoric, external pressure to detach from its past atrocities and the modern-day manifestations of long-standing wealth inequality, this rise in the AfD is worth following. Though it is unlikely that the party will hold consistent parliamentary authority, it does risk expanding influence in the future and eroding democratic stability in Germany. This event also follows the global trend towards conservatism and specifically the impact this has had on democratic backsliding within Europe.