Access to Reproductive Health Care as an Economic Multiplier

In June 2022, I had just graduated high school when Roe v Wade was overturned, and it was impossible not to react to the news. This illustrates how one of the most controversial topics in the U.S. over the past few years has been reproductive rights. The discourse on what is right and wrong is never-ending, and what should be part of human rights and necessary healthcare has become a political topic rather than a medical one.

When Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, many saw it as a violation of the Declaration of Human Rights, which states that everyone has a right to necessary medical care, social services, and the right to security. If medical care is a part of basic human rights, how can it be taken away? This has become an ongoing issue in the United States, as many people argue that the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade represents a clear violation of human rights, given that women in multiple states are now unable to obtain the procedures they need because doctors fear losing their licenses. Aside from the clear medical implications, this has and will continue to affect aspects of life that people don’t even think about.

Factors of Economic Growth

Economic development is an essential part of a country’s growth. Factors like human capital – defined as the skills, knowledge, and abilities provided by individuals -, natural resources, capital formation, technological development, and social and political forces all play crucial roles in the economic progress of a country. But what happens when one of these becomes compromised? Although all five are essential, one stands out as the foundation for the rest.

Without human capital, the other factors are simply not possible to achieve. Technological developments don’t happen overnight, and government policies don’t spawn out of thin air. Therefore, it is easy to understand that the more labor force participation there is, the greater the push for development and growth. With this in mind, one would assume that the biggest challenge would be encouraging as many people as possible to enter the labor force.

To achieve this, there are several key factors that are necessary for growing human capital– one of those being access to affordable healthcare. Since 1965, women’s labor force participation has been going up (with exceptions for COVID). In 1960, the FDA approved the distribution of the birth control pill, and less than a decade later, in 1973, Roe v. Wade was passed, challenging abortion bans and ruling them unconstitutional.

Labor Force Participation in the US

Woman in a contemplative state
fizkes, Adobe Stock

As of 2025, women reportedly make up 47% of the labor force, meaning the distribution between working men and women is practically equal. Access to reproductive care has given women and families an ability to have control over their lives. By delaying having kids, women have been able to increase their participation in the labor force and pursue higher education, including undergraduate and post graduate degrees. This ultimately led to earning higher wages. So, it begs the question, if the goal is to grow human capital and grow the economy, why would a government ban one of the things that allows women to have a higher labor force participation?

Abortion as a State Right

In the US, it is expected that 25% of women will undergo an abortion at some point, making it one of the most common health procedures for women. In many areas, the criminalization of abortion access is seen as a human rights violation, and it is known that criminalizing abortions causes a plethora of problems. Getting rid of safe abortion does not eliminate abortion, instead it makes it dangerous and scary (Berer, 2023).

After abortion laws were left up to individual states in the US, it became clear that the states that outlawed abortion not only have higher maternal mortality rates, but also twice as many teen births compared to the states where abortion remains legal. While teen births have been on the decline since before the ban, the same cannot be said for maternal deaths. Maternal deaths are more than twice as high in states that do not allow abortion, and worse yet, maternal deaths have been on the rise since before the abortion ban (GEPI, 2023). Although those living in states that now have abortion bans were already less likely to seek abortions prior to the ban, the rise in deaths post-ban has noticeably increased.

A hand holding a protest sign that says keep your laws off my body. — Protest sign for abortion bans
Adobe Stock, JP Photography

Future Reproductive Rights Issues

In the coming years, due to the abortion ban, more women could end up in situations where they have to stay home to take care of children and are thus unable to enter the workforce. Pregnancies in young women will likely increase, making it difficult for them to obtain higher education degrees, which could ultimately limit them to a life of staying at home or holding a series of lower-paying, temporary jobs.

Some might argue that in the past, women did not obtain college degrees and worked stable income jobs their whole lives. As much as that is true, it fails to consider the fact that the world is different now than it was 30 years ago. Over the years, the competition in the job market has significantly increased, and obtaining a higher degree can be the determinant of job stability. The more people who earn degrees, the harder it becomes to compete for a job for those who don’t have one. Which makes it now, more than ever, so important for women to be able to rely on the fact that they will be able to get affordable reproductive healthcare when they need it.

Women as a Part of the Labor Force

Allowing women autonomy over their body supports economic growth. The more people who have entered the labor force, especially those who are educated, the more development and technological innovation will follow. Women will be able to work and start families when and if they want to. By doing this, there is also a higher guarantee that more children will grow up in stable households and go on to obtain higher education. There is almost a domino effect that is created which will multiply through the years. Access to reproductive healthcare serves as an economic multiplier.

Being able to obtain the necessary medical care that someone needs should never be a political issue. Stripping away the rights to abortion and possibly contraceptive care clearly violates the Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights are not and should not be rooted in political agendas. In a world full of injustices, it remains important to stand up for the greater good and bring awareness and education to those around you.

From Stigma to Strategy: Egypt’s Fight Against Cervical Cancer

Egypt, known as the mother of the world, has made headlines for its global health impact. From eradicating malaria to tackling hepatitis C, it has made strides to protect the health of its nation. However, women’s health seems to be on the back burner for the country. Egypt, a country rich in history and culture, remains a country that grapples with stigma and systemic inequality. The health issues still faced by the country are not just surrounding public health, but also human rights.

The Silent Crisis

Cervical cancer is rarely discussed. It is a preventable and treatable disease, primarily caused by infection with human papillomavirus (HPV). This burden is seen throughout the world, but especially the Middle East and North African region, which carries a unique incidence, being 24% in the Sub-Saharan region. Though there is variability through the region, Egypt faces large challenges to approaching HPV reduction. In Egypt, however, this is not frequently discussed, even though a population of 25.76 million women over the age of 15 are at risk of developing cervical cancer due to the lack of interventions that exist. The prevalence of HPV in Egypt in 2014 was 10.4%, with the highest rate occurring in women 45-54 years old. Beyond this, over 800 women die each year from cervical cancer in Egypt, with thousands more facing delayed diagnoses, impacting their ability to respond to treatment. A variety of factors contribute to the development of the illness in Egypt, ranging from knowledge gaps to a lack of vaccines accessible to marginalized communities. The number of infected individuals has been increasing steadily for various reasons, indicating the burden of illness in the country

The silence around cervical cancer is a product of overlapped gender stigma and medical discrimination. Some women have even reported feeling unsafe and scared about mentioning HPV and cervical cancer, due to the perception of external pressure. This results in women feeling less comfortable seeking out information and support before and during the onset of the illness, negatively impacting their outcomes.

Political Barriers

In Egypt, HPV and cervical cancer prevention is not just a medical issue; it is also deeply political. Policies have worked to make healthcare generally less accessible. An example of this was recent legislation passed in 2024. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi signed legislation that allows private sector entities to operate and manage public health facilities on a for-profit basis. This is dangerous for the citizens of Egypt, especially those who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who rely on subsidized healthcare. The consequences of this in terms of HPV prevention are significant; laws like these limit the availability of accessible interventions that individuals can trust long-term, as there would be uncertainty regarding the long-term implications of their results. This mistrust could cause individuals not to seek vaccine opportunities and consequent treatment, if applicable, which would increase the burden of the disease in Egypt overall.

There are some humanitarian barriers that exist to helping reduce the onset of HPV and cervical cancer in Egypt. One is that of humanitarian support. With entities like the WHO and UN mobilizing care to millions across the world, their reach and impact is quite vast. With oncoming political crises, climate change, and more, many high-income countries are leveraging support for their low-income and middle-income peers. However, these programs, integral to global health security, are coupled with concerns about aid effectiveness and donor notices. Historically, donors have rewarded improved outcomes in governance and human rights; however, now, donors have worked to avoid “spillovers,” which is the impact of immigration policies in a country beyond the intended scope into their own country due to instability and migration flow. Though Egypt does not fall into this category as a state risky for aid support, it could be tangentially related. The country has faced many issues, ranging from security to freedom of speech attacks, resulting in lower spending on social protection, health, and education than would otherwise be possible, opening an outlet for the onset of disease in Egypt.

Social Barriers

Identity and culture also influence the onset of HPV as a precursor to cervical cancer. Those born female have an increased risk of developing HPV, a risk that is then compounded by class and socioeconomic status. In Egypt, there were around 1,300 new cases and 744 deaths from cervical cancer in 2023 alone. The incidence to death ratio is alarming considering that cervical cancer is preventable with a vaccine.

A lot of entities have tried to work to see how adverse outcomes in communities can be reduced. Ranging from the Egyptian Society of Women’s Health to NGO sites, there have been some improvements in reducing the HPV and cervical cancer incidence in Egypt. However, these interventions are not being adjusted to support the need of rural communities, leaving them underserved. This results in additional barriers for these communities to gain the access to healthcare they deserve.

HPV and the Fight for Human Rights

The societal silencing of the HPV issue results in additional challenges to addressing the health inequities that are present in Egypt when it comes to cervical cancel. As many women stay quiet about their diagnosis, they are unable to live their best lives and advocate for themselves. Women’s healthcare is a tool to improve life outcomes, and human rights will be best served by working to not only increase access to interventions, but also ensure that they are equitable for all Egyptian women across the world.

Addressing the Global Water Crisis

My water bottle travels with me everywhere. It seems like something I cannot live without. When I was filling it up from the tap before heading to class, I couldn’t help but wonder what it is like to lack access to clean drinking water. That is the reality for many people around the world, especially as weather patterns change and industry use of water increases. Globally, water systems are failing, and people pay the price.

The UN’s Perspective on Water:

The UN General Assembly recognizes the right of individuals to “enough water for personal and domestic uses,” or 50 to 100 liters per day. The UN stresses water’s importance for health and well-being, stating that “water should be treated as a social and cultural good, and not primarily as an economic good.”

Water’s Impact on People

Despite the importance of water to daily life, a quarter of the world’s population lives in countries with inadequate water supply, and water shortages threaten to displace hundreds of millions by 2030. When water isn’t easily accessible, people have to walk miles to transport it. When this task falls to children, their physical health and education are threatened.

It is paramount that access to water is expanded globally. What threatens our water supply? How can it be improved? The following are a few examples of water issues and how they have been handled worldwide.

Sustainable Practices in Agriculture

As climate change and industrial practices threaten the delicate balance of the hydrological cycle, which represents the flow of water across the planet, careful management of water is more important than ever. Conservationist groups have made proposals to both governments and private industry for implementing more sustainable water practices.

One major area of potential improvement is agriculture, which accounts for around 70% of the world’s water usage. Efficient and sustainable practices, such as drip irrigation and storing water, are recommended by environmental groups to reduce water usage. Some farmers are hesitant to update their methods due to the high up-front costs of installing these systems. In Mexico, drought is forcing farmers to reassess their traditional flood irrigation. Managing water use is difficult due to the economic demand for this precious resource.

A vegetable field is flooded, illustrating a wasteful use of water. — Image 2: Flood irrigation of a vegetable plantation wasting water. Source: Adobe Stock.

Difficulty in Addressing Crises

Iran is currently battling a water crisis due to the combined effects of decreased rainfall and chronic mismanagement. In Tehran, the nation’s capital, water pressure is so low that it cannot reach many of its residents. When confronted with a changing climate, Iran has funneled resources into water-intensive industries and drained groundwater for agriculture, rather than prioritizing access for individuals.

Despite the way that water-intensive industries contribute to scarcity, addressing water shortages in Iran is not as simple as shutting down these water-intensive industries. Water conservation plans must account for sectors like steelmaking and agriculture, because they are major contributors to Iran’s economy. Some solutions, like groundwater recharge, which allows more rainwater to soak into the ground and replenish aquifers, don’t require sacrifices to industry. Climate-focused innovation can provide relief for water-strained areas, while other development projects put communities at risk.

Costs of Development for Communities

The development and expansion of infrastructure are important to sustaining the modern world. However, development comes at a cost to environmental stability. These issues affect ordinary people’s access to clean drinking water.

In Lesotho, a small landlocked country, residents have submitted complaints to the African Development Bank, claiming that a water project, which will transport water from Lesotho to Johannesburg, South Africa, has damaged their homes and polluted their water. In trying to provide water for one population, incautious development has put another community at risk.

Other development projects seemingly unrelated to water still place a strain on resources and pollute surrounding areas. Artificial intelligence data centers have become a flash point for environmental and water issues. Meta’s data center in Newton County, GA. has limited nearby residents’ access to water. The construction of the data center, which uses 500,000 gallons of water daily, caused sediment build-up in pipes. It has cost homeowners thousands of dollars in repairs.

AI data centers require water to cool their processor chips, and they also use electricity generated by steam-powered plants. Large data centers can use up to 5 million gallons of water per day. Some concerned citizens are seeking to block the construction of these plants because of the rising environmental costs associated with them. Environmental advocacy is one path toward equitable water access, as data center projects worth billions of dollars have been blocked or delayed by local communities in the US. Even so, other efforts are stalled by corporate lobbying.

Corporate Influence on Environmental Legislation

To implement water policy, governments must make choices about the practices for water extraction and the uses of water that they will allow. In the United States, private equity-owned companies like BlueTriton, whose products include Poland Springs, are rewriting environmental legislation. An amendment proposed by BlueTriton lobbyists in the Maine legislature struck an entire bill that would have placed limits on its contracts with the state.

The bottled water industry uses significantly less water than agriculture and other sectors, but BlueTriton’s involvement in Maine’s legislation is just one of many cases involving corporations influencing environmental policy. In 2025, over $60 million has been spent on lobbying the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to roll back regulations on PFAS industries. This is money well spent for lobbyists, since the EPA has moved to vacate portions of its PFAS limits rules in drinking water. Governments are key players in water management, so their attention to vulnerabilities is paramount to managing water crises.

What Happens When Governments Neglect Vulnerable Communities?

In the Maldives, which faces unique challenges including rising sea levels and unpredictable weather patterns, a Human Rights Watch (HRW) investigation found that the government has struggled to communicate effectively with rural communities, thereby putting them at risk. The investigation also found that the government left crucial water infrastructure, including desalination plants, in disrepair. An earlier HRW report concluded that the Maldives Environmental Protection Agency failed to enforce environmental regulations, which threatened access to freshwater.

The Maldives government has partnered with NGOs like the Green Climate Fund in recent years to improve its water systems, but some residents pointed out that the projects were “carried out hastily and remained only partially completed, years behind schedule.” This demonstrates the difficulty of restoring water infrastructure that has fallen behind. Along with recent efforts by the Maldives Government, the international community has stepped up to help alleviate the water shortage through grant funding of projects like building desalination plants.

alt= — Image 3: Desalination plant. Source: Adobe Stock

International Cooperation

These challenges transcend borders. Therefore, the international community, institutions like the United Nations Development Programme, NGOs like the Green Climate Fund, and individuals worldwide are working transnationally to ensure access to safe and secure water for all. The UNDP has invested over $8 billion in sustainable water development, and it recently partnered with the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) to bring clean water to 150,000 Ethiopians.

What Can We All Do?

Sustainable development and equitable access to water are possible. To reach the UN’s sixth Sustainable Development Goal of safe and affordable drinking water for all, individuals, governments, and corporations must take action. Potential solutions include environmentally conscious infrastructure development, limiting waste, and investing in innovative green technologies. Individuals can join their local Waterkeeper Alliance chapter, support water conservation legislation locally and nationally, limit their personal water use, and donate to water organizations.

Cuba’s Electricity Crisis: What’s Happening and What Comes Next

Recent Blackouts

The recurring blackouts in Cuba are not random accidents; they are the clearest evidence of a grid that is stretched to its limits. In September 2025, the island’s national grid collapsed once again, leaving the country in darkness for hours. Reuters reported this as the fourth such failure within a year, the product of sudden shutdowns at generating units and the collapse of transmission lines. Power was restored gradually, but the event demonstrated the fragility of the system. These blackouts are not isolated incidents but the predictable outcome of deeper structural weaknesses.

Image 1: Street in Cuba. Source: Yahoo! Images

The Scale of the Shortfall

The scale of the electricity deficit illustrates the severity of the crisis. Reports from Cuba’s state utility, echoed in international coverage, noted that generation shortfalls in 2025 often exceeded 1,300 to 1,700 megawatts during peak demand. Given the modest size of the grid, this deficit meant that at times nearly half of national demand went unmet. Authorities responded by cutting power to entire regions in order to prevent complete collapse. The fact that such extreme measures are necessary underscores the unsustainable mismatch between demand and available supply.

Causes of the Crisis

The causes fall into three categories: infrastructure, fuel, and financial capacity.

First, infrastructure remains the most visible problem. Cuba relies on oil-fired thermal plants built decades ago, many of which are in deteriorated condition. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has emphasized that the country’s generation mix remains heavily dependent on oil, with little diversification compared to its regional peers. When such aging facilities break down, the grid lacks redundancy, and obtaining spare parts is difficult. Maintenance is often delayed because of financial limits, leaving plants more vulnerable to failure.

Second, fuel shortages amplify the fragility of the system. Cuba imports much of the fuel needed to run its plants. Deliveries from Venezuela and Russia have been inconsistent, and limited foreign currency reserves prevent Cuba from buying from other markets. Domestic crude is heavy and sulfur-rich, which accelerates wear on equipment. The Associated Press has shown how these supply issues translate directly into blackouts, as plants are unable to run at needed capacity.

Finally, the broader financial crisis prevents modernization. With restricted access to international credit and trade, Cuba cannot easily fund new power stations or grid upgrades. Stopgap measures such as leasing floating power plants or importing small generators provide relief but are costly and unsustainable. These responses demonstrate urgency but also reveal the state’s limited room to maneuver.

Social and Economic Impacts

The electricity crisis affects more than power consumption; it reaches into daily life and the economy. Households experience water shortages because pumps require electricity. Refrigeration becomes unreliable, threatening food and medicine storage. Many Cubans fall back on bottled gas or wood fires when power is cut, while internet and communication services weaken further during outages. Businesses, particularly small ones, lose productive hours without backup generators. Even the tourism industry, one of Cuba’s key revenue sources, struggles as hotels and restaurants attempt to maintain services amid rolling outages. Hospitals use emergency generators, but these depend on scarce diesel, leaving healthcare facilities at risk during long blackouts.

These disruptions carry broader consequences. Public frustration grows as outages stretch beyond twelve hours in some regions, eroding confidence in the government’s ability to provide basic services. The crisis also raises business costs, discourages investment, and accelerates emigration, particularly among younger professionals. The electricity problem is therefore not only technical but also social and economic, shaping the choices individuals and communities make about their futures. Access to reliable electricity is a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and Cuba’s constrained ability to ensure it reflects broader limitations on the state’s capacity to fulfill economic and social rights.

Government Responses

The government has adopted a mix of emergency and long-term responses, though both reveal limitations. Rolling blackouts remain the central short-term strategy, designed to prevent total collapse. Emergency repairs and floating power stations provide additional capacity, but at high cost.

At the same time, officials have announced renewable energy projects, with a focus on solar power. Targets call for hundreds of megawatts of photovoltaic capacity, supported by international partnerships. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) and other observers, renewables currently account for less than five percent of Cuba’s electricity mix, meaning the path to diversification is long. Progress is further constrained by the need for financing, storage capacity, and stronger grid infrastructure. These efforts are aspirational and signal intent, but they remain far from transforming the immediate reality.

Limitations of Current Responses

The limitations of these measures are clear. Rolling blackouts maintain control but do not solve underlying shortages. Floating plants and small generators provide relief but do not modernize the system. Renewable projects point to a better future but require resources the government struggles to secure. Without broader structural reform, both technological and financial, Cuba will remain locked in a cycle of temporary fixes and recurring blackouts. Blackouts deepen inequalities, disproportionately affecting lower-income and rural communities, which often lack resources for backup generators.

Future Scenarios

Several scenarios emerge from the evidence. The most realistic short-term path is stabilization, which would entail combining emergency repairs, modest new generation, and incremental renewable growth. This could reduce, though not eliminate, the severity of outages. A more ambitious scenario involves accelerated renewable deployment, supported by international financing and partnerships. This path could reduce reliance on imported fuel and create long-term resilience, but only if Cuba can overcome significant investment and logistical barriers. The least optimistic scenario is continuity: erratic fuel deliveries, aging plants, and insufficient investment sustaining a cycle of crisis for years to come.

Which path materializes will depend on both internal capacity and external conditions, from global fuel markets to the willingness of partners to invest in Cuba’s infrastructure. The government’s ability to manage projects and prioritize reform will also be decisive.

Conclusion

Cuba’s electricity troubles have weighed heavily on daily life, the economy, and the country’s outlook. Still, the crisis isn’t only a story of hardship. It’s also a story of people adjusting, of small acts of resilience, and of steps toward a different energy future. The government’s renewable projects may be slow, but they point to possibilities beyond the current struggles. In the meantime, families, neighborhoods, and businesses continue to adapt as best they can, holding onto the hope that the lights will stay on more often in the years ahead.

Gendered Vulnerability in Afghanistan’s Earthquake Crisis

Earthquakes destruction in Afghanistan. — Image 1: Afghanistan earthquake’s destruction. Source: Yahoo Images.

Recently, two large-scale earthquakes hit Afghanistan, furthering the dire humanitarian crisis. Earthquakes with magnitudes of 6.0 to 6.2 are likely to cause significant damage in largely populated areas. The first, which was a magnitude of 6.0, occurred on August 31. This resulted in around 2,000 deaths, caused thousands to sustain injuries, and damaged health facilities and homes. Unfortunately, four days later, the second earthquake hit, this one being a 6.2 magnitude earthquake.

In the aftereffects of natural disasters, the people most affected are women and children. In Afghanistan, where women’s rights are being heavily restricted, their ability to access humanitarian aid is limited. Previously, in October 2023, two 6.3 magnitude earthquakes hit Afghanistan. This event and its effects on the women and children was written about in a blog by Delisha. If you would like to read about that, check out her blog, Deadly Earthquake in Afghanistan Magnifies Gender Apartheid Under Taliban Control. For an overview of women’s rights violations in Afghanistan, read my previous blog, A Woman’s World in Afghanistan: An Update on Women’s Rights Violations in Afghanistan.

For this blog, we will be looking at the most recent earthquake, its effects on women and children, and the humanitarian aid response. Throughout this blog, keep in mind a couple of articles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 18 relates to women’s freedom of movement and Article 25, right to food, clothing, housing, and medical care. Throughout the Taliban’s recent reign, these rights have continuously been violated. Frequent earthquakes have furthered the humanitarian crisis and highlighted women’s rights issues.

The Devastating Effects of Earthquakes in Afghanistan

Image 2: Traditional Afghan Homes. Source: Yahoo Images.

On average, earthquakes kill around 560 people every year in Afghanistan, making it a common natural disaster. The country sits between the Eurasian tectonic plate and the Indian plate, hence why earthquakes are so frequent. The common house in rural Afghanistan is made out of mudbrick, wood, and stone. With frequent earthquakes each year, this causes significant damage and destruction to many homes.

The Kunar region has been especially affected by the recent earthquakes. Located in the northeastern area of Afghanistan, bordering Pakistan, this remote area had many of their homes destroyed. In response to the destruction, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has provided medical aid to areas like Kunar. Although they are providing support and medical aid, many people still struggle with food security due to the loss of livestock (goats and cows) during the earthquakes.

Along with the ICRC, the International Rescue Committee (IRC) has been offering food, shelter, and medical aid. After the initial earthquakes, around 85% of those interviewed by IRC had no shelter to sleep in. All of their homes had been destroyed. On average, $80 million in damage occurs every year in Afghanistan due to earthquakes. Because of the recent cutback on humanitarian aid from foreign entities and the rising restrictions on women and girls, the crisis continues to grow.

Women’s Struggles Amidst the Aftermath of Earthquakes

Image 3: Humanitarian aid distribution in Afghanistan. Source: Yahoo Images.

The Kunar region has experienced high levels of destruction. As the weather gets colder, the need for more aid becomes increasingly imperative. Around 50% of Afghanistan’s population relies on food aid, but the restriction of movement within Afghanistan makes it difficult for people to gain access to humanitarian aid, including food and medical supplies. These restrictions have made it almost impossible for women and girls to receive this aid, a problem compounded by the fact that 422 health facilities have either closed or have been suspended.

The majority of people injured or killed during the earthquakes were women and girls. Women and girls are not allowed to be in public without a male escort. However, with homes destroyed and sometimes the men and/or sons being killed in the earthquakes, women are left with little means to survive. This makes it difficult to find services or to receive medical aid.

UN Women is currently appealing for $2.5 million to increase the number of women-led response teams helping in Afghanistan, boost access to services, and create a 6-to-12 month emergency response. This would allow for more critical materials, such as blankets, clothing, and cooking utensils, to be distributed amongst families that remain in temporary shelters. It would also create spaces that women and girls can meet and receive aid.

The Taliban’s Gender-based Persecution

Afghan women standing in line with Burkas on. — Image 4: Afghan women standing in a line. Source: Yahoo Images.

Since the Taliban took over control of Afghanistan in 2021, the rights of women and girls have been stripped away. Journalists have been detained, and anyone who would oppose the regime has been silenced.

Donor governments, such as the United States of America, have made significant cuts to aid. Neighboring countries, like Iran and Pakistan, have returned millions of refugees, causing the number of displaced people in Afghanistan to grow.

As stated in a recent post of mine, women and girls are not allowed to be educated past the sixth grade. Women are also not allowed to attend university, have jobs, leave the house without a male relative, or visit public spaces.

De facto security has prevented Afghan women workers from entering into the UN Compound in Kabul, Afghanistan. Recently, security had been placed in front of multiple UN entrances to monitor people entering. The Taliban has also restricted women national staff from traveling into the country. Interfering with UN missions is a violation of international law.

As such, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant on July 8, 2025 for the arrests of Haibatullah Akhundeadal (the Taliban’s leader) and Abdul Hakim Haqqani (the Taliban’s chief justice). The charge of the crime is gender-based persecution, which is a crime against humanity. Crimes against humanity are large-scale crimes against civilians. This includes torture, sexual violence, apartheid, and in this case, gender-based persecution.

This issue of gender-based persecution in Afghanistan has long limited women from receiving aid when disaster hits. It is important that Afghan women’s rights issues continue to get international attention. This way their struggles and fights do not go unnoticed.

What You Can Do

Entire villages have been destroyed, thousands of people have died, and even more have been injured and displaced. Women and girls’ access to humanitarian aid is limited and hinges on whether or not they have a male relative to escort them or if there are female humanitarian aid workers. Organizations like the International Refugee Committee (IRC), UN Women, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have been working to provide aid to the areas most affected by the earthquakes. If you want to help and are able, you can look into donating to any of these organizations.

High-Income Countries Retreat from Global Health

President Donald Trump holds a cabinet meeting, Wednesday, February 26, 2025, in the Cabinet Room. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

Introduction

In favor of focusing on domestic economic recovery, migration control, and new geopolitical strategy, high-income countries are overlooking global health in their reprioritized foreign aid plans (Nain, 2025). This retreat from investing in global health displays a departure from historically fundamental moral and legal obligations to global health and human rights. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the right to health has been codified as a shared responsibility. However, recent policy changes suggest a breakdown in multilateral obligations. The blog seeks to explore the ideological and structural consequences of this retreat, asking what does it mean when global health is no longer treated as a collective imperative, but as a negotiable interest?

Historical Context

More than mere technical interventions, global health has a history of moral and legal obligations rooted in human rights. The right to health, as enshrined in Article 25 of the UDHR, affirms that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family” (United Nations, 1948). This was further codified in Article 12 of the ICESCR through the obligation of state actors to act toward “the prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases,” as well as the “creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness” (United Nations, 1966; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights & World Health Organization, 2008). Scholars and practitioners over the past two decades have asserted global health to be rights-based and participatory (Meier & Gostin, 2018; Gostin & Meier, 2020). Additionally, Mulumba et al. (2025) argue that enforceable commitments from high-income countries are essential to the global realization of the right to health. Despite these observations, recent trends suggest a troubling retreat from these shared responsibilities.

Delegates from Netherlands looking at documents at AMR conference — Rene Verleg Fotografie
10 February 2016, 09:02 AMR conference – Ministers Schippers & van Dam EU2016 NL from The Netherlands

Policy Shifts

A series of global health funding cuts, including a 67% reduction from the United States in 2025, has disrupted various health programs including those surrounding HIV, tuberculosis, and maternal health across dozens of countries (Krugman, 2025). Similarly, the United Kingdom instituted an aid reduction of 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income by 2027, most severely impacting sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR) (Parker & Garcia, 2021). Through the Mattei Plan, Italy restructured its aid to prioritize migration control and energy diplomacy, which reduced bilateral health programming by 26% (Donor Tracker, 2025). Canada, despite earlier commitments to scale SRHR investments, paused new global health funding in 2024, claiming to instead be prioritizing domestic equity (Global Affairs Canada, 2024). Australia deprioritized health programs through a $500 million cut from its Indo-Pacific aid portfolio in favor of strategic infrastructure and defense partnerships (Stanhope, 2024).

Citing “shifting national priorities,” the Netherlands withdrew support from SRHR, LGBTQIA+, and harm reduction programs (Meier & Gostin, 2018). Norway reduced its aid by 5% in 2024, drastically impacting emergency relief and support for low- to middle-income countries (Norad, 2025). Revising its Development Cooperation Charter to align foreign aid with national security, Japan launched Official Security Assistance (OSA) and shifted focus from multilateral health to defense and tech diplomacy (International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2024).

Germany and France have reallocated development funds toward trade competitiveness, migration control, and domestic security (Parker & Garcia, 2021). Germany, despite remaining a top donor to the World Health Organization (WHO), has adopted a transactional posture that has subordinated health to economic and geopolitical interests (Bayerlein, 2025; Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2025). Similarly, France launched a new Global Health Strategy and co-hosted the WHO’s Investment Round but cut global health aid by 33% amid domestic budget strain (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2024; World Health Organization, 2025a; Krugman, 2025).

Spain and South Korea complicate this trend through selective engagement rather than full high-income country retreat. South Korea reaffirmed its leadership through strategic dialogue with the WHO, and Spain launched a new Global Health Strategy in 2025 (World Health Organization, 2024a; World Health Organization, 2024b; Donor Tracker, 2024). Despite these efforts, both countries have simultaneously recalibrated foreign policy toward economic security and technology diplomacy (Lee, 2024; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Spain, 2025).

These are more than fiscal shifts in a world of economies. They reflect a deeper ideological repositioning. Many governments increasingly justify aid reductions through a “domestic-first” standpoint that frames global health as competing priority with national economic recovery, rather than as a complementary one (Center for Development, 2025). Others prioritize defense, trade, and migration over health equity as a geopolitical strategy. This logic is echoed across the philanthropic sector, where the Gates Foundation’s 25-year sunset plan embodies a transition from broad global health engagement to a finite, legacy-oriented agenda (Gates Foundation, 2025; Shefcik, 2025). This recalibration, framed as a pivot toward “achievable” goals, reflects the broader trend of donor fatigue and feasibility framing. This trend suggest that global health priorities are now shaped by power asymmetries, short-term metrics, and political expediency rather than solidarity across shared interests (Abimbola, 2021).

Human Rights Implications

We have already begun to feel the consequences of these shifts. UNAIDS (2025) warns of the impact felt in countries like Tanzania and Uganda, which have seen closures and disruption in HIV clinics and other essential services. These disruptions, as documented by Physicians for Human Rights (2025), threaten to reverse decades of progress in HIV prevention and treatment. UN agencies are also warning that gains in preventable death reduction from maternal health programs could be lost (World Health Organization, 2025b). These disruptions disproportionately affect marginalized populations and violate core human rights obligations (Meier & Gostin, 2018; Gostin & Meier, 2020; UNRIC, 2025). The WHO has reported that over 70% of surveyed countries are experiencing similar health system breakdowns due to aid withdrawals (World Health Organization, 2025c). These outcomes show the severe impacts of eroded accountability measures within global health governance (Parker & Garcia, 2021).

One of the signs at the main entrance to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) offices being taped over on February 7, 2025. This is on the west side of the Ronald Reagan Building. 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
7 February 2025, 12:54:26 http://edwardjohnson.com/ G. Edward Johnson

Domestic Consequences

High-income countries are not exempt from the consequences of the retreat from global health. Parker and Garcia (2021) argue that isolationist health policies create blind spots that leave even wealthy nations vulnerable to transnational threats. Weakened pandemic preparedness, undermined surveillance systems, and limited coordinated response capacity are all side effects of reduced engagement (Bond, 2025). Perhaps more significantly, the public is experiencing a breakdown of trust in health institutions. Amid a growing crisis of confidence in public health leadership, calls for renewed efforts to restore institutional legitimacy are on the rise (Leslie, 2023; Cooper, 2025). Withdrawing from global health commitments not only abandons vulnerable populations globally but also compromises the moral leadership and resilience of high-income countries.

Closing Reflection

Beyond restored funding, a reorientation of values is necessary for a rights-based recommitment to global health. This requires the abandonment of performative pragmatism for enforceable obligations to solidarity and justice. It demands the centering of marginalized voices, the rebuilding of institutional trust, and the recognition of global health as a shared infrastructure of resilience, rather than a zero-sum game of political maneuvering. The consequences of this retreat – from disrupted HIV clinics to weakened pandemic preparedness – must be confronted as we forge a new path rooted in justice. Furthermore, for a more equitable and secure world, it is a strategic imperative that we reclaim global health as a human right.

One In, One Out Mandate: How the UK and France Systematically Deny Claims to Asylum

In August this year, the UK and France began their trial of a One In, One Out Policy regarding migrants. While the current UK government champions this mandate as a way to tackle illegal immigration and assist more vulnerable populations, currently there is no plan in place to ensure those protections.

In this article, we will be examining the terms of the deal and the implications this has for immigration to the UK, the societal treatment of migrants, and the effect this policy can have on the lives and integration of migrants into the UK.

Policy Overview

Man holding a board with the French flag design and the words "Immigration Policy." — Source: Adobe Express. By STOATPHOTO, Asset ID# 1193060357

The current mandate, in effect as of August this year, deals with illegal immigration from France to the UK. As per this mandate, any immigrants who are caught going from France to the UK will be deported within 14 days of their claim being denied, and the UK will accept the same number of immigrants from France who have applied legally and fulfill other criteria.

Yvette Cooper, in her then position as Home Secretary for the UK, said in a letter that this initiative aims to dismantle smuggling operations. Smugglers can often extort large amounts of money from desperate migrants, and their methods of smuggling can be dangerous, unreliable and even contribute to human trafficking. The policy specifically targets immigration across the English channel, aiming to shut down smuggling via small boats.

A catch of this policy is that the UK considers France a safe third country and can automatically deem asylum claims from migrants from France as inadmissible. With only a 14-day period from asylum claim denial to deportation, and limited access or knowledge of legal resources, this will make it virtually impossible for anyone coming from France to have their claim properly considered.

Human Impact

Hands holding scraps of paper reading "Refugee" and "Asylum" — Source: Adobe Express. By nito, Asset ID# 106026480

While the Home Office said this initiative is primarily aimed to increase border security and fight smuggling operations, there is no plan currently in place to protect the most desperate and vulnerable immigrant populations.

Legal difficulties exist not just for the migrants who are deported out via this deal, but also for those who are accepted in. In order for a migrant to be eligible to be accepted to the UK under this policy, they are required to pass background checks that include proof of identification, such as a passport, and submitting a recent photograph. These may be insurmountable obstacles for refugees from war-torn regions or those fleeing the effects of devastating famines or other natural disasters. To hinge someone’s eligibility for asylum on meeting these requirements may violate Article 14 of the UDHR, which grants the right to seek asylum, because it does not consider their actual claims to asylum and immediately dismisses what could be an absolutely critical and legitimate case for entry. What is being presented as a fair and just deal targeting smuggling operations will end up preventing people from accessing refugee status in the UK.

Legal Limbo

Yvette Cooper, current UK Secretary of State — Yvette Cooper, current Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for the UK. Source: Steve Eason

This deal is currently only in its trial phase until next year, and under its current limitations the cap is 50 people returned to France each week. At the beginning of August this year, more than 25,000 people had already arrived in the UK by crossing the English Channel in a small boat. As the UK hits its limit of deportees every week, another issue arises: what to do with those who are not returned to France.

For these individuals, their claim to asylum will likely still be denied. However, they will have to wait in detention centers for months while they are being processed. There are not many return agreements with other countries, so the UK has very few options for where to send these immigrants. Slow processes to attempt to return immigrants will result in long wait periods in detention centers, followed by even longer waiting periods in legal limbo if they’re released into communities.

Ultimately, this new mandate will impede people’s freedom of movement, deny what could be strong and legitimate claims for asylum, and create further obstacles for people seeking refuge from war-torn or dangerous regions. It is not a solution to the immigration problem, but it is the introduction of more hurdles that would-be immigrants must overcome as they seek inclusion in society, secure living and cultural acceptance.

Memory Against Forgetting: Families of Colombia’s Falsos Positivos Lead the Fight for Dignity

When we talk about justice, it’s tempting to think first of courtrooms, judges, and laws. But for many Colombians, especially the families of victims of falsos positivos, justice has been built not only in tribunals but in memory itself: in the photos carried to marches, the murals painted in neighborhoods, the names shouted at demonstrations, the rituals performed year after year so that forgetting is impossible.

Between 2002 and 2010, thousands of young men — mostly poor, often from rural or marginalized communities — were killed by members of Colombia’s military and falsely presented as guerrillas killed in combat. These extrajudicial executions, known as falsos positivos, were incentivized by a warped system that rewarded body counts with promotions, money, and leave time.

For the families of the deceased, the pain was double: they suffered not only the violent death of their children, brothers, or fathers, but also the stigma of being told these dead loved ones were “terrorists.” For decades, official narratives denied their innocence. In response, parents, siblings, and loved ones took on the role of guardians of memory.

Today, as Colombia’s Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) finally begins to hand down historic rulings against perpetrators, the country is reminded that these families’ insistence on remembrance is what made justice possible at all.

Sign that states mothers of Soacha and Bogota do not forget — Image 1: Sign “The mothers of Soacha and Bogota do not forget”. Source: Yahoo Images.

Memory as Resistance

In Colombia, the act of remembering has often been a political gesture. For mothers who lost their sons to falsos positivos, memory is more than grief: it is resistance against erasure.

One of the most emblematic groups is the Mothers of Soacha (Madres de Soacha). In 2008, dozens of women discovered their sons had been lured from Bogotá’s outskirts with promises of work, only to be killed hundreds of miles away and buried as guerrillas. For them, memory became a form of activism:

Photographs at protests: They carried enlarged portraits of their sons to public squares, confronting officials and society with faces that proved they were not anonymous guerrillas but young men with families, lives, and dreams.

Annual commemorations: Every year, they gather to honor the date of disappearance or death, keeping the stories alive in the community.

Murals and art: Walls in Soacha and beyond carry painted faces of the murdered youth, transforming public space into testimony.

This memorialization disrupts the state’s attempt to rewrite their deaths as a part of “combat.” It asserts: they lived, they were innocent, and they will not be forgotten.

Image 2: Sign in favor of the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz. Source: Yahoo Images.

The Weight of Stigma

For families, memory is not only about honoring loved ones but also about countering stigma. Many recall being told by neighbors, even relatives, that their sons must have been guerrillas — why else would the army say so? The official record branded them criminals, compounding the loss with shame.

By publicly naming them, retelling their stories, and refusing silence, families reclaimed dignity. Memory became a way of restoring the humanity stripped away by both the bullets and the lies.

In that sense, memorialization is not passive. It is an active form of justice: refusing the false narrative, demanding truth, and forcing institutions to confront uncomfortable realities.

From Memory to Justice: Recent Developments

The persistence of families has borne fruit. This September (2025), the JEP issued its first substantive ruling on falsos positivos. Twelve ex-military officers from the Batallón La Popa were held responsible for 135 killings between 2002 and 2005. Instead of prison, their sentences include restorative projects: building memorials, contributing to truth-telling initiatives, and reparations.

For many families, the ruling is bittersweet. On one hand, it is the first time the state has officially recognized that their loved ones were not guerrillas but civilians murdered under a policy of deception. On the other, some feel restorative sanctions are insufficient for crimes of this magnitude.

Yet, what is undeniable is this: without the relentless work of victims’ families, there would be no case, no ruling, no justice at all. Their memory work forced the truth into public view, long before courts were willing to listen.

Memory Across Generations

Memorialization also has a temporal dimension. Parents age; siblings pass the torch. Children who never met their uncles now grow up seeing their faces in photos at family homes. Some youth groups have joined mothers in painting murals or organizing cultural events to keep the memory alive.

This intergenerational transmission matters. It means falsos positivos are not confined to dusty files or occasional headlines; they remain part of Colombia’s living social fabric. Memory ensures continuity, so history cannot be rewritten by official silence.

The Global Echo

Colombia is not alone in this. Around the world, victims’ families have taken up memorialization as a path to justice:

These movements share a belief: memory is part of justice when justice is delayed.

Image of women holding up signs with pictures — Image 3: Mothers of Plaza de Mayo. Source: Yahoo Images.

The Fragility of Memory

Yet memory is fragile. Murals are painted over. Political shifts can reduce funding for memorial projects. Denialist narratives re-emerge. Even now, some Colombian politicians downplay the scale of falsos positivos or frame them as “errors” of war rather than systematic crimes.

This is why the work of families remains so urgent. Their voices remind us that memory cannot be outsourced to institutions alone. It lives in communities, in stories told around dinner tables, in names recited at vigils.

A Country Still Healing

Colombia’s 2016 Peace Accord promised both truth and justice. The JEP was born to address atrocities like falsos positivos. Its rulings — like the one in September — are milestones. But healing requires more than verdicts.

It requires listening to families, supporting memorialization efforts, and integrating their memory work into the nation’s broader historical narrative. Museums, school curricula, public memorials, and state apologies can all help ensure that the falsos positivos are never repeated and never forgotten—and to that end, some rulings have ordered soldiers and officers to participate in community memorial projects, recognizing memory as a necessary path toward reconciliation.

Memory as Our Responsibility

The parents and relatives of falsos positivos victims have shown extraordinary courage. They remind us that memory is not just about the past, it is about shaping the present and protecting the future.

By carrying photos, painting murals, and speaking truth, they have forced Colombia, and the world, to confront a reality that many preferred to ignore. Their work demonstrates that justice is not only legal but also cultural and emotional.

A Call to Remember

As readers, we too have a role. We can support memorialization efforts, share victims’ stories, and resist denialist narratives. If you are in Colombia, visit a memorial site, attend a commemoration, or learn the names of the victims in your region. If you are outside of Colombia, read about the Mothers of Soacha, amplify their voices, and connect their struggle with global movements for truth and justice.

Because in the end, forgetting is complicity. And memory — stubborn, painful, luminous memory — is the first step toward dignity, accountability, and peace.

Construction and Consequences: The Human Impacts of Artificial Intelligence Data Centers

This summer, I worked with a few different advocacy organizations during Louisiana’s 2025 Congressional Session. The amount of policy issues flying around was mind-spinning, but a constant murmur about the new Meta data center popping up in Richland Parish always seemed to pierce through the chaos. I couldn’t help but think, “Of all the state issues we could be debating, what could be so provocative about a data center?”

Data centers are nothing new; ever since the birth of the Internet, they have been used for the large-scale computing that comes with ever-advancing technology. With the rapid expansion of generative AI, our country is seeing more and more of these processing centers pop up, especially in rural areas. Governments, researchers, and communities alike have been forced to face the glaring reality that comes with the construction and maintenance of new AI data centers: where there are new data centers, there are human lives directly impacted by their creation. Debate on whether these effects are a net positive or negative to these communities has prompted closer examination on the human impact of data centers. Only through a thorough analysis of this ongoing research can we determine the nature and scope of these impacts and explore proper policy responses.

WATER

We rely on water; it’s as simple as that. We need water to drink, bathe, flush the toilet, wash our hands and dishes, and water our crops; it’s a necessity to life, and an officially recognized human right. As much as we need water, data centers are even thirstier. It takes a lot of water to cool down all of the computing that takes place in these buildings. In 2021, just one of Google’s data centers in Oregon used up 355 million gallons of water. In 2023, all of Meta’s data centers worldwide guzzled around 1.4 billion gallons of water. Where is this water coming from? Of Meta’s 1.4 billion gallons, about 672 million gallons came from local water sources. The extraction process is permanent, meaning data centers deplete millions of gallons of water from communities’ local water supply yearly, and with the industry’s rapid expansion, its water consumption will only grow. Some residents living nearby these new data centers, such as Beverley Morris in Mansfield, Georgia, believe that these centers are draining wells and aquifers, leaving locals without drinkable or fully functional running water in their homes. For communities in the Southwest, this could pose an especially pressing threat during droughts as the scarce water supply is divided between industrial and civilian use.

Landon Marston, a professor in environmental and water resources engineering at Virginia Tech University, points out that since companies like Meta and Google tend to choose areas outside of cities to construct these data centers, the surge in water demand could also necessitate water infrastructure updates, the costs of which could fall partly on local ratepayers.

ENERGY

AI data centers require tons of energy. We’re talking 200 trillion watts an hour, and that was only in 2016. The power usage of these data centers is projected to rise to nearly 2967 trillion watts an hour by 2030. The previously flatlined demand for electricity has been increasing nationally since 2023 partly due to the energy-intensive operations of growing data centers. The majority of data centers’ energy relies on fossil fuels and power plants, putting pressure on local energy grids. This increased pressure poses the threat of more frequent, long-lasting, and expensive blackouts for the communities surrounding these energy-hungry data centers.

More pressure on the grid naturally means more pressure to update the grid. Local belief and research alike contend that the cost of these grid updates, as well as the price tag of the extra energy demand, will show up in locals’ energy bills. A Harvard study provides evidence that under-the-table agreements between utilities and Big Tech consumers could be partly responsible for increased rates on everyday residents’ bills. Additionally, in places like Louisiana, the combination of prolonged need for air conditioning and damage to energy infrastructure due to storms drive energy bills up as it is; the intense energy demands of the new data center will serve only to exacerbate the steep cost of energy and amenities in nearby homes and businesses. Utilities are essential to decent quality of life and even employment, tying their accessibility directly to human rights.

A person with a calculator in one hand and a utility bill in the other attempts to calculate what they owe. — Source: Adobe Express, Anna, #529027855

PUBLIC HEALTH

Since AI data centers rely heavily on the fossil-fuel energy of power plants, they run the risk of increasing local pollution and threatening public health in already vulnerable rural locations. AI centers, on top of their energy use from the grid, also employ backup generators in case of grid failure; these diesel generators can release 200 to 600 times more nitrous oxides (NOx) than a natural gas plant while producing the same amount of energy. NOx pollution can cause irritation in the eyes, throat, and nose, as well as more severe cases of respiratory infection, reduced metabolism, and even death. According to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE, data centers caused about $6 billion in public health damages due to this type of air pollution in 2023. That being said, location matters. Often, these data centers choose rural areas, and in cases like that of Bessemer, Alabama, these areas are often home to a large Black population. Black Americans already suffer disproportionately from air pollution and other environmental injustices; in fact, low-income Black Americans have the highest mortality rate due to fine particulate matter air pollution. The emergence of data centers in rural Black communities only serves to exacerbate this phenomenon. This can be directly traced to industrial zoning policies, which often result in the sacrifice of poor, rural, often Black areas to attract business and wealth to cities. The result? Higher rates of asthma, respiratory issues, even pollution-related death, and a direct violation of the human right to clean air.

Smog plumes out of a large plant, polluting the sky. — Source: Adobe Express, Jaroslav Pachý Sr., #175217425

ECONOMY

While industrial zoning and property value are the most important location factors, choosing a lower income, rural area also poses possible economic advantage for the communities. The construction of processing centers can require thousands of workers, offering steady employment opportunities for locals. After construction, companies like Meta, Google, and Microsoft will have to hire employees to keep their data centers managed and running properly, another new job opening for those in the surrounding area. Some locals have expressed excitement over the new economic growth data centers will bring, especially in areas with dwindling industries like coal and timber. Working in data centers is an attractive alternative to the low-paying, dangerous agricultural jobs some of these areas rely on. Others have raised concerns that while many jobs will certainly appear during the construction period of the centers, employment opportunities from data centers seem to fall off afterwards. Depending on the size, each data center building could operate with as little as fifty employees, according to Microsoft. Larger ones like the one developing in Louisiana are required to employ 500 locals, but even that opportunity seems small to some residents in comparison to the harm the center could bring to their community. Members of communities impacted by the development of data centers have also expressed concerns about land usage, pointing out that the extensive land taken up by these new data centers had potential to be used for farming or other less health-damaging economic development. The right to employment good working conditions are outlined directly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and these economic impacts could very well jeopardize them for those living in surrounding areas.

What Now?

Artificial Intelligence isn’t going away; in fact, we can expect its rapid expansion in the coming years, including the construction of dozens of new data centers. Behind AI’s captivating technologies, there are human lives impacted by the processes it takes to power its functions. Considering the damage data centers can do to local resources, it certainly seems like measures need to be taken to ensure the escalating growth of AI doesn’t come at the expense of communities, especially those that already face disadvantage. First and foremost, companies establishing these centers should focus on using renewable energy for much of their power, thereby decreasing their environmental impact on local communities. In addition, companies should adopt initiatives to maintain the local water supply’s integrity, recycle water when possible, and ultimately, improve the efficiency of their computing to save resources like water and electricity. Local governments must ensure that the price of increased pressure on electricity and water infrastructure does not end up on ratepayers’ bills; this means more transparency from large companies and their agreements with local utility providers and governments regarding the construction and maintenance of these centers and the impacts on local residents’ well-being. These centers, if built sustainably and with people in mind, could ultimately have a positive impact on industry and economy within these communities. The development of data centers must not concentrate solely on maximum profit and computing power but also on the adverse effects the center has on utility bills, air quality, water demands, the power grid, and public health as a whole.

So, really, it’s no wonder advocates, lobbyists, and policymakers couldn’t stop talking about Richland Parish’s new data center. It’s nearly as big as Manhattan, and its effects on the surrounding community may end up being just as sizable.

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.