Better know a candidate: Gilbert Ayala

Gilbert Ayala

Future position: Candidate running for State Senator for Legislative District 5 in Nebraska

Key issues/positions:

Opposes the Employment Nondiscrimination Act

Opposes expansion of Medicaid in Nebraska

Supports school vouchers to increase “school choice.”

Opposes horse racing in Nebraska

Opposes physician-assisted suicide

Opposes the legalization of recreational marijuana

Opposes abortion in all cases – “There is no case of a child being aborted to save the mother. When a doctor is dealing with a pregnant woman he has two patients not one patient.”

Supports providing religious liberty protections for faith-based organizations

Opposes government funding for abortion and planned parenthood

Opposes raising the minimum wage in Nebraska

Opposes comprehensive sex education in all Nebraska schools

Opposes allowing students and children to use bathrooms that are consistent with their biological gender

Advertisements

Better know a candidate: Carol Blood

Carol Blood.jpeg

Carol Blood

Current position: Consultant

Future position: Running for state senator of Nebraska, legislative district 3.

Key positions/issues:

Believes voting is a fundamental right.  She does not believe that voter fraud is a problem in Nebraska so we do not need voter id laws.

Supports Medicaid expansion in Nebraska

Believes that we should  review mandatory minimum sentences and expanding prison alternatives.

 

Better know a candidate: Tommy Garrett

Tommygarrett.jpg

Tommy Garrett

Current position: State Senator, Legislative District 3

Future position: Running for re-election for Legislative District 3 in November

Political party: Republican

Key issues/votes:

Garrett was a sponsor of LB 643 which would allow medical marijuana for Nebraska.  This bill would allow medical marijuana for those who suffer from cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, Crohn’s disease, chronic pain, nausea, or seizures.  He voted in favor of this bill.

LB 268: This bill would repeal the death penalty in Nebraska.  Garrett voted in favor of this bill.

LB 10: This bill would have changed the electoral votes in Nebraska by eliminating the electoral votes by Congressional district.  The bill would move Nebraska back to a winner take all state.  Garrett voted against this bill.

LB 947: This bill would allow immigrants protected by President Barack Obama’s DACA executive actions to receive professional licenses.

LB 586: This bill was to establish an employment non-discrimination act for the state of Nebraska.  The bill would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.  The vote was to table the bill.  A vote in favor of tabling the bill is, in effect, a vote against the bill.  Garrett voted in favor of tabling the bill.

LB 1032: This bill would expand Medicaid in Nebraska.  The medicaid expansion includes plans for people to buy private health insurance plans.  The vote was to table the bill.  A vote to table the bill is, in effect, a vote against the bill.  Garrett voted in favor of tabling the bill.

LB 485 (previous session): This bill would establish an employment non-discrimination act for the state of Nebraska.  Garrett voted against the bill.

LB 943 (previous session): This bill would have increased the minimum wage to $7.65 in January 2015, $8.35 in January 2016, and $9.00 in January 2017.  Garrett voted against this bill.

 

 

 

 

Better know a candidate: Dan Watermeier

Dan Watermeier.jpg

Dan Watermeier

Current position: State senator, Legislative District 1, Nebraska

Future position: Running for re-election for legislative district 1 in 2016.  He is running unopposed in the general election.

Key issues/votes:

LB 268: This bill would repeal the death penalty in Nebraska.  Watermeier voted against this bill.

LB 10: This bill would change Nebraska from splitting their electoral votes by congressional district and move the state to a winner-take-all program.  Watermeier voted against this bill.

LB 947: This bill would allow professional licenses to immigrants who were protected by President Barack Obama’s DACA executive order.  Watermeier did not vote on this bill.

LB 586: The bill would create a Employment Nondiscrimination Act for the state of Nebraska.  The vote was to table the bill.  A vote to table the bill is, in effect, a vote to reject the bill.  Watermeier voted to table the bill.

LB 1032: This bill would expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.  The bill would give funds to people eligible for expanded Medicaid to purchase private health insurance.  The vote was to table the bill.  A vote to table the bill is, in effect, a vote to reject the bill.  Watermeier voted to table the bill.

LB 83: This bill would prohibit wage discrimination based on gender for employers with 2-15 employees.  Watermeier did not vote on this bill.

LB 943 (previous session): This bill would increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $7.65 in January 2015, $8.35 in January 2016, and $9.00 in January 2017.  Watermeier did not vote on this bill.

LB 599: This bill would establish a minimum wage for young student workers to $8/hour or 85% of the federal minimum wage whichever is higher.  Watermeier was a co-sponsor of the bill.  He voted for the bill.

LB 643: This bill would authorize medical marijuana for those who have cancer, glaucoma, Croh’s disease, AIDS, chronic pain, nausea, or seizures.  Watermeier voted against the bill.

Watermeier does not support a pay increase for state senators or repealing the term limits for state senators.

 

 

 

 

Better know a candidate: Don Bacon

Don Bacon

Current position: Assistant professor, Bellevue University.  Running for Congress in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District

Political party: Republican

Future position: TBD

Key issues:

Supports a balanced budget amendment to the constitution

Opposes the Iran Nuclear deal

Opposes closing Guantanamo Bay

Pro-life: Supports the pain-capable unborn child protection act.  This bill would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks.  Supports defunding Planned Parenthood.  He also opposes any federal funding for abortions and abortion providers.

Supports a reduction in corporate tax rates to a rate of at least 25%.*

Opposes any tax increases.

Opposes a path to citizenship for those who immigrated illegally to the United States.

Supports the REINS Act

Opposes Common Core

Supports raising the retirement age for social security

Supports repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA)

Opposes DACA executive actions made by President Barack Obama

Opposes sanctuary cities

Wants to hold employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants

Does not support a federal minimum wage increase; minimum wage should be decided by the state.  Ideally should be set by the private sector

 

 

 

 

Better know a candidate: John Murante

Sen. John Murante

Name: John Murante

Current position: State Senator Legislative District 49, Nebraska

Future position: Murante has been linked to a potential Congresssional run for Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional district.  If Representative Brad Ashford wins re-election in 2016, it seems likely to me Murante will run for the Congressional seat in 2018.

Political party: Republican

Positions/key votes:

LB 268 – Yes.  This vote was to repeal the death penalty vote.  Murante voted for the repeal initially.  When Governor Pete Ricketts vetoed the bill, Murante sustained the veto.

LB 10 –  This bill would move Nebraska to a winner-take-all electoral college votes.  This would move Nebraska from splitting their electoral votes, as was the case in 2008.  Murante was one of the biggest supporters of this bill.

LB 947- This bill would allow immigrants who were protected with President Barack Obama’s executive actions with DACA to apply for work licenses.  Murante voted against this bill.

LB 586 – This bill was for a statewide Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) in Nebraska.  The vote on the bill was to table the bill to the end of the session.  A vote to table the bill is, in effect, a vote against the measure as a whole.  Murante voted to table the bill.

LB 1032- This bill would expand Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  It is conservative plan to expand Medicaid which would give money to have people purchase private health insurance.  The vote on this bill was to table the bill.  Thus, a vote to table the bill is, in effect, a vote against the bill as a whole.  Murante voted to table the bill.

LB 485 (previous session)- This bill was for a statewide ENDA.  Murante voted against the bill.

LB 83 (previous session) – This bill would expand prohibition on wage discrimination by gender to employers with 2-15 employees.  Murante did not vote on this bill.

LB 599 (previous session) – This bill established a minimum wage for young student workers at a rate of $8/hour or 85% of the federal minimum wage, whichever is higher.  Murante did not vote on this bill.

LB 943 (previous session) – This bill would increase the minimum wage in Nebraska from $7.25 to $7.65 beginning January 2015, $8.35 beginning January 2016, and $9.00 beginning January 2017.  Murante voted against this bill.

Murante opposed a measure that would increase the minimum wage for tipped wage employees to $3/hour.

 

 

 

 

 

Legislative priorities: Reforming opioid and heroin laws

Policy goal: The ultimate goal of reforming these laws is to focus on harm reduction rather than penalization, decrease the atmosphere of fear, and help prevent unnecessary death.

Specific policy aims:

  1. Support Good Samaritan laws
  2. Provide standing prescription for naloxone and opiod overdose reversal medications
  3. Work towards creating safer injection sites for drug users
  4. Extend legal clean needle exchange programs to cover all 50 states and rescind the ban on federal funding for syringes
  5. Work with general practice physicians and pain-specialists to rewrite the guidelines for prescribing opioid painkillers

Information for specific policy aims:

The leading cause of accidental death in America is drug overdoses, specifically opioid overdoses.  As prescriptions for these types of painkillers have risen over the years, as has the death toll from overdoses.  This was brought up in the presidential primary in New Hampshire with stories from candidates including New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and at least a passing mention of the other Republican contenders.  In 2014, there were 28,647 deaths from opioid drugs.  This represents 61% of all drug overdose deaths in 2014.  The number of overdoses from opioids has more than tripled since 2000.  Unfortunately, the epidemic is growing as opposed to slowing.

With that in mind, we need ways to be able to get victims of drug overdoses to the hospital so that they can be treated as soon as possible.  As in most medical emergencies, time is of the essence.  More than half of drug overdoses occur in front of another witness but only 10-56% of individuals are willing to call 911 for help.  Even with that in mind, people are only willing to call 911 after efforts of reviving the victim are unsuccessful.  In most cases this fear comes in the form of penalties to those who are witnesses to the overdose.  Law enforcement can, in most states, charge people with drug or paraphernalia possession and/or being under the influence when they arrive on the scene.

Twenty states and the District of Columbia provide some type of immunity for people acting as “Good Samaritans” and are calling the authorities to handle a medical emergency.  They are offered protection from being charged with being under the influence, drug possession, or possession of paraphanaelia.  They are not immune from trafficking drug charges or large quantities of drugs (intent to sell).  This is a commonsense practice that can save hundreds, if not, thousands of lives.

Another practice that can be effective in reducing the number of deaths related to opioids would be to allow for standing prescriptions of the opioid reversal drug, naloxone.  Naloxone is an injection that is available at 0.4 mg/ml to 1-mg/ml solution.  It can be administered into a vein, into a muscle, or under the skin.  There is work being done to make naloxone into a spray.  There is also a tablet that may be created for naloxone, as well.  It only produces effects if opioids are present in the body.  A dose of naloxone will compete with an opioid on the receptor and will partially or completely reverse the opioid effect.  Naloxone will produce withdrawal symptoms within minutes and will subside after about 2 hours.  But because it does not last very long, there may be a need for repeated doses of naloxone to be able to positively reverse the drug overdose.  It is not a habit forming drug.

While there are those who think that prescribing Naloxone will further the drug overdose epidemic, I find this line of argument mainly unfounded.  The National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that 35% of those surveyed would feel more comfortable using greater amounts of heroin if Naloxone were readily available.  In the same study, 90% of users had reported witnessing an overdose and providing lay remedies to revive the victim.  While the 35% of those who may feel more comfortable using a greater amount of heroin, the ones who have tried to revive a victim would be able to save many lives if Naloxone was available.  87% reported that they would be willing to participate in a training program and 84% would carry naloxone after training.

The American Medical Association (AMA) has endorsed policies that would strengthen community programs to both train and educate health care workers and opioid users about the use of naloxone.  The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) found evidence that take-home naloxone programs decrease overdose-related mortality.

The CDC has provided training for people to use this drug since 1996.  They’ve trained over 53,000 people and have used it to reverse over 10,000 drug overdoses.  The most successful program has been San Francisco which has over 3,600 prescriptions filled since 2013 and have saved 916 lives.  Some states, such as Washington, have passed laws that allow for anyone at risk of having or witnessing a drug overdose to obtain a prescription.

We should adopt this practice of providing those at risk of witnessing an overdose to have a prescription of Naloxone and to allow for a standing prescription of Naloxone on pharmacies.  In order to do so, we will need to put in rules so that doctors cannot be held liable if a patient overdoses and naloxone is not administered in time to be able to save the patient.  The availability of the prescription would not be enough, we would need to provide additional community training to overcome the potential risks of take-home Naloxone.  The NIH study found that 62% of heroin users would be less likely to call 911 for an overdose and 30% might leave an overdose victim after naloxone revival.  We would need to work with specialists and the medical community to provide additional training so that the Naloxone resuscitation will be as effective as humanly possible.  West Virginia has expanded the use of Naloxone to reduce deaths with opioid overdoses and we will have to look to West Virginia to see how their programs work to ensure that any similar programs will be administered correctly.

While we are in the middle of an opioid abuse epidemic, there are a number of opioid addicts who move to use heroin.  The dangers of heroin include the danger of needles, specifically dirty needles.  Dirty needles can lead to outbreaks of HIV, hepatitis, and other blood-borne pathogens.  Needle exchange programs allow people to trade dirty needles in exchange for free sterile needles.  Beyond that, they serve as safe spaces for drug users to try to access medical care and referrals to drug treatment programs.  Federal funding for these programs have been banned since 1988.

In January of 2016,a new omnibus budget was passed to allow public health departments and nonprofit organizations to use federal funding for needle-exchange programs in high risk areas, as flagged by the CDC.  The budget would not allow these health departments and public health organizations to be able to pay for the syringes.

The CDC stated a health goal for 100% coverage providing all injections are performed with a sterile syringe.  The Drug Policy Alliance found that we are far short of this goal.  The estimates of sterile syringe coverage in major metropolitan areas are from 0.03% to 22% with a mean of 3.2%.  There are about 0.9 to 2 billion injections nationally each year but there are only about 43 million sterile syringes distributed by needle exchange programs annually.

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, there are an estimated 350,000 regular injection drug users in America.  Drug users still deserve to be able to be safe from diseases and not risk contracting blood-borne pathogens.   After taking out mother-to-child HIV transmission cases, about 35% of all AIDS infections can be attributed to injection drug use.  This can almost directly be linked to the lack of availability of clean needles.  The CDC has reported that the one-time use of sterile syringes remains the most effective way to limit HIV transmission associated with injection drug use.

HIV and AIDS are not the only diseases that injection drug users are at risk of contracting.  The most prevalent other diseases are hepatitis B and hepatitis C.  While these diseases are not as common in the United States as they are in other portions of the world, there are an estimated 800,000 to 1.4 million people in the United States with chronic hepatitis B and hepatitis C, according to the National Institutes of Health.  According to the Hepatitis B Foundation, about 40,000 people will become newly infected with Hepatitis B each year.  The death rate, according to the CDC, is 0.7% from the cases that they studied.  From the same set of cases, the CDC found that 61.6% of cases caused hospitalization.  Hepatitis C actually seems to be more dangerous.  The CDC found that in 2007, the number of deaths associated with hepatitis C surpassed the number of deaths by HIV.  This number has only increased since 2007.  The CDC believes that this number is even underestimating the actual death total.  They noted that the “mortality burden is likely much greater than these numbers suggest because death certificate validation studies have concluded that only a fraction of HCV-infected decedents have HCV listed on their death certificate, even when pre-mortem evidence of serious liver disease is present.”  In 2014, a total of 2,194 cases of acute hepatitis C were reported to the CDC from 40 states.

In a 2000 report by former United States Surgeon General David Satcher, “there is conclusive scientific evidence that syringe exchange programs, as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention strategy, are an effective public health intervention that reduces transmission of HIV.”  In a study cited by the World Health Organization (WHO) found “an 18.6% annual decrease in the HIV rate in 36 cities with [needle exchanges] compared to an 8.1% annual increase in 67 cities that did not contain [needle exchange programs].”  In a study by Don C. Des Jarlais et. Al in the American Journal of Public Health, they found that over a 12-year period in New York City there was a decrease in new cases of HIV among injection drug users while the number of syringes exchanged in the needle exchange programs increased from 250,000 to over 3 million.

Needle exchange programs are cost effective programs to help reduce public risk.  The cost of treating a person with HIV is estimated at $190,000 according to the CDC.  There is another estimate of treating HIV patients from the US Conference of Mayors.  They estimated that the lifetime cost would be $120,000 from diagnosis to death.  The average city cost to run needle exchange program would be about $131,000.  Unfortunately, that current estimation might be understating it.  The needle exchange program would have to be expanded to provide adequate syringe coverage and would need to be expanded from its current setup.  Franklin Laufer in his article Cost-Effectiveness of Syringe Exchange as an HIV Prevention Strategy estimated that 87 HIV infections were averted as a direct result of the needle exchange program.

As previously mentioned, needle exchange programs do not only exchange clean needles for dirty needles.  97% of these programs provide public health services such as substance abuse treatment, counseling, sex education, HIV counseling and testing, tuberculosis screening, and primary health care.  Because of the various treatment and services they offer, they seem to be leading to a more conducive environment to reduce drug abuse.  The NIH found that needle exchange programs lead to a “reduction in risk behaviors as high as 80 percent in injecting drug users.”  In a Seattle study, they found that needle exchange participants were five times more likely to enter drug treatment than drug users who do not participate in the program.  Surgeon General Satcher concluded that needle exchange programs successfully refer clients into substance abuse programs.

Based on the evidence, needle exchange programs are a cost effective way to reduce the harm for drug users limiting their chances of contracting HIV, AIDS, or hepatitis while providing health care and substance abuse counseling for injection drug users.  There does not seem to be any scientific evidence that there is an increase in drug use because of these programs or that drug users feel more empowered to be able to use drugs because of these programs.  Absent substantial evidence that this is the case, we should be increasing federal funding for these programs and rescind the ban on purchasing syringes for these programs.  We should also be funding community outreach programs to work with local law enforcement, teachers, health care providers, and community activists to essentially help design needle exchange programs that are specific to each community.  The single biggest driver of success of these programs is the extent to which the community buys into the program.  Getting local organizers and activists to help design the program will help with the success of the programs.