We are building a citizen army across America fighting for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that will end the rampant corruption of our federal government and ensure Free and Fair Elections. The massive amounts of money spent in our elections from outside special interests, often with little to no transparency, is drowning out the voices of average citizens and distorting the most fundamental principle of America - a country dependent upon the people alone. By working together, we can solve this problem and ensure true representative government in America for ourselves and future generations with an amendment to the Constitution. Wolf-PAC is using a proven strategy of going through our state governments to achieve an amendment. Learn more about our plan and how to become an active citizen by visiting our website.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

A general view of a United States Semiquincentennial flag on July 04, 2026 in Columbus, Ohio.
(Photo by Dylan Buell/Getty Images)
America at 250: A Mirror, Not a Monument
Aug 10, 2026
A nation’s anniversary is not a monument to its leaders. It is a mirror held up to its people. At its best, it asks citizens to see what the country has achieved, what it has become, and what it still hopes to be. America’s 250th anniversary has now revealed how divided the national mood truly is — a moment that should have unified the country instead exposed how distant many Americans feel from the story being told.
That emotional reality is central. Before it is a political or historical milestone, this anniversary is lived experience. Millions of Americans did not feel reflected in the national mood surrounding the 250th. Some are exhausted by years of political conflict. Others feel detached from civic rituals that no longer seem to reflect a shared national identity. Still others experience a quieter estrangement — the sense that national storytelling has become filtered through politics. When civic rituals lose shared ownership, the constitutional design that depends on public recognition begins to strain.
Congress originally envisioned America250 as a bipartisan civic commemoration meant to strengthen unity and renew engagement with the nation’s constitutional inheritance. It was designed for reflection, not performance. Yet as it was rebranded under “Freedom 250,” many saw the celebration’s tone shift. What was intended as a shared national story increasingly revolved around narrower political framing and a more personalized narrative. The anniversary became a mirror reflecting not only our achievements, but our unresolved tensions.
For many Americans, the tone of the celebration confirmed that concern. My niece, who visited Washington during the anniversary weekend, described a mood more tense than celebratory. She spent time around the monuments, museums, and the National Mall, noticing a heavy Coast Guard presence, MAGA hats, and an atmosphere more guarded than festive. Her experience echoed national reporting: on July 4, hundreds of masked members of the white nationalist group Patriot Front marched through the city carrying Confederate and inverted American flags. For many visitors, the scene reinforced the sense that the 250th unfolded not as a unifying civic moment, but as a reflection of the country’s divisions.
This sentiment reflects a broader backdrop shaped by the past decade of American life — and sharpened by recent months. The country has endured sustained conflict over elections, constitutional norms, executive authority, immigration policy, and civil rights.
Reporting shows that former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said her team had a plan to “make sure we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders to lead this country” — a remark many now interpret through the lens of current legislation and efforts to elevate election deniers. Polling indicates that 73% of Americans believe the president is not paying attention to the issues that matter to them. Fatigue is not only a symptom; it is a warning that civic renewal is overdue.
Within that environment, President Trump remains a defining figure in American political life. For supporters, he represents disruption and strength. For critics, he represents a period in which political identity and institutional strain became deeply intertwined. Recent statements — including his claim that political opponents would seek to impeach him if they win — have reinforced for many Americans the sense that national commemoration has become entangled with personal political narrative.
Reporting also shows that a Qatari jet he described as a “gift” has required renovations that could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, deepening concern about personalization of office and the burden placed on citizens. Immigration policy has added to that concern: more than a million people — nurses, caretakers, construction and hospitality workers — have lost legal status, while white immigrants continue to be welcomed. For many Americans, these choices have made the anniversary feel less like a celebration of national progress and more like a reminder of who is included in the national story — and who is not.
Yet the deeper issue is civic ownership. National anniversaries are not meant to belong to presidents or parties. They belong to citizens. When large portions of the public no longer see themselves reflected in national rituals, those rituals lose their unifying force — not because the nation has failed, but because shared recognition has weakened.
The Constitution anticipates this danger. It disperses power to prevent any single leader from becoming synonymous with the nation itself. Sovereignty rests not in the presidency, but in the people. That design is what makes national anniversaries meaningful in the first place: they reflect a civic identity larger than any one administration.
A contrast can be seen in other civic moments of reflection. Coverage of the opening of the Obama Presidential Center described a gathering that included former Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden, alongside international figures such as former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Cultural and civic leaders also participated, and reporting emphasized an atmosphere oriented toward reflection, public service, and institutional continuity — a tone many Americans hoped to see in the 250th.
The significance of this contrast is experiential. It illustrates how differently citizens respond to national moments depending on whether they feel included in them. When civic events emphasize shared identity and reflection, they tend to generate broader engagement. When they appear more personalized or politically filtered, many experience distance instead of belonging.
George Santayana warned that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. But remembrance is not only about avoiding repetition — it is about recognizing patterns of civic strain and renewal. Every generation inherits both the Republic’s achievements and its unresolved tensions. Some eras emphasize unity; others expose fracture. The question is whether citizens interpret those tensions as permanent division or as challenges requiring renewal.
Looking back at the past decade, many Americans hold mixed impressions: pride in democratic participation alongside concern about polarization, institutional distrust, and the personalization of political life. The Republic appears both durable and strained — its institutions functioning, but its shared civic identity thinner.
Still, resilience matters. Despite pressure and division, constitutional systems continue to operate: elections proceed, courts rule, and civic freedoms remain intact. These guardrails are not self-sustaining, but they have not failed. Their endurance depends on continued civic participation.
That is the deeper lesson of this anniversary. A republic is not preserved through ceremony alone. It is sustained through participation. Citizens must remain engaged with history as responsibility, not myth. They must reject cruelty as a substitute for leadership, resist falsehood as civic norm, and insist that accountability extends beyond party loyalty. Voting is one form of civic duty, not its limit. Civic life requires attention, memory, and engagement. Renewal begins when citizens reclaim the rituals meant to reflect them.
America’s 250th anniversary should not be understood as a celebration of completion. It is an acknowledgment of endurance and an invitation to reflection. The mirror it holds up is not always comfortable. It reflects unity and division, hope and fatigue, belonging and distance. But it also reflects something essential: a system still capable of self-examination.
If Americans look honestly into that mirror — not to admire themselves, but to understand themselves — this moment may yet become more than a fractured celebration. It may become a turning point toward renewal. The future of the Republic will not be determined by who narrates its anniversaries, but by whether citizens still recognize one another in a shared democratic experiment.
____________________________________________________________________________
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and former human relations and professional development coordinator who writes about civic responsibility, democratic values, and the everyday experiences that reveal who we are as a nation.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

Christian nationalism is shaping US policy and politics. Religious leaders and citizens can challenge extremism and rebuild democracy through peace, dialogue, and inclusion.
P Deliss/Getty Images
Calling all Peacemakers and Children of God
Aug 10, 2026
The official recruitment practices haven’t changed, but more than a year after the US State Department’s excavation, a new contract with Military Hire, a subsidiary of RedBalloon, aims to recruit candidates ideologically aligned with the current administration, including Christians. Not an isolated incident, this was just one example illustrating how a particular Christian nationalist ideology has been seeping into domestic and foreign policy. We should hear the clarion call warning of the dangers of extremism. But it should also invite us to a deeper understanding of one another and a reimagining of our democracy.
Journalists have described Secretary of War Hegseth’s membership in the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), his invitations to clergy from this denomination to preach at the Pentagon, and proclamations of God’s will as he wages war against Iran. This ideology elevates the concept of our nation based on an extreme, narrow Christian identity.
According to Actions Counters Terrorism in the UK, some of the characteristics of those drawn to extremism include a need for identity, meaning, and belonging; an obsessive, angry desire for change; spending an increasing amount of time online, sharing extreme views on social media; being influenced or controlled by a group; and a desire for status or domination. Extremist ideology also reflects and propagates traditional gender norms, so it should come as no surprise that CREC believes that women should lose the right to vote. Hegseth’s latest attempt at testosterone screening to keep US armed forces “on the leading edge of lethality” co-opts ideas of masculinity that justify violence.
These warning signs reveal real underlying needs that can pull people towards extremist thinking. Such ideology promises the power of a new world of security, control, and prosperity. Yet when extremist groups of any religion, nationality, or ethnicity capture power, the future becomes limited, one of exclusion, narrow rigidity, and disappointment. However, the motivation, the deep longing within each individual and community, is that the vision of what we desire is far more expansive than we can imagine. This vision of purpose, meaning, and belonging can not only be found in shared stories but co-created anew.
We are lucky enough to live in a country that values freedom of religion. This right gives us the responsibility to live with others who may or may not share our faith or any faith at all. The coexistence can be a struggle, and perhaps that is what is reflected in Scriptural references cited at the National Prayer Breakfast and by the Department of Homeland Security, as key messages coming out of the current administration.
In fact, the deeper meaning underlying these Scriptural verses is a recognition of the frailty of human life, the challenge and difficulties of living one’s faith, and the worthy endeavor of peacemaking, which is not just the absence of disorder and conflict but the striving towards wholeness. Christianity has quite a bit to say about fear, fear of losing control, fear of the stranger, fear of the unknown. Jesus is often calling Christians to the places of discomfort, challenging them to be more inclusive of the other, to reconcile with one another. Indeed, among Christians, people are called beyond mere tolerance of their neighbors, but more to love them.
This reflects the overarching teaching of Scripture to love the Lord your God…and to love your neighbor as yourself. The invitation to relationship with God and others is actually expansive, unconditional, more about the humility of being in right relationship, faithfulness, not blind obedience. The call, the responsibility is to embody this compassion and recognition of all human beings as created in the image of God. And yes, even those with whom we disagree.
While valuing the US separation of church and state, there is a role for religious and lay leaders to engage in public discourse. Christian nationalists’ narratives are not only dominating the cultural and media space but also dictating national security. Where are the religious (and lay) leaders to challenge such interpretations shaping our governmental policies? We need the moral courage to engage in dialogue. Having worked with women peacebuilders globally, I have witnessed how they draw upon faith and cultural traditions and influence religious and community leaders to join movements for peace and justice. From Indonesia to Iraq, local organizations – many of which are led by women peacebuilders – have joined up with religious leaders to promote values like human rights, democracy, tolerance, and full acceptance of the differences that exist on this earth.
Pope Leo has preached against war, reminding us that “it takes only a moment to destroy, but often not even a lifetime is enough to rebuild.” His message of peace is not idealistic or utopian. Like the work of building democracy, the work of building peace is slow and painstaking at times. Other Christian religious leaders should join him in challenging scriptural interpretation weaponized for violence to articulate its messages of hope, peace, justice, compassion, and dignity. Indeed, one of their tasks is to explore the relevance of religious scriptures for our lived realities, a tradition which spans cultures and religions, from women ulama in Indonesia to the Social Principles of Methodism. Religious leaders hold the moral authority to practice dialogue and reconciliation.
Similarly, citizens of all backgrounds can practice peace in our homes, communities, and professions. Can we read or listen to media outside of the algorithmic bubbles which inhabit our everyday lives? Can we spread messages of peaceful coexistence online to counter those which would divide us? Can we strike up a conversation by asking questions simply because we are curious and seek to understand? Can we ask ourselves, if I were living in different circumstances, how might I respond? We can participate in both intra and interfaith dialogues to build understanding and connection, which strengthen our communities and our democracy. And we can hold our political leaders accountable.
We can ask ourselves whose voices we are not hearing. For some, it may be those who feel oppressed, who do not want to lose their history, their way of life. They may struggle to find their place and leadership in a fast-changing world. We see and hear you. And to those from CREC and others, may we remember, in the words of the Reverend Ginger Gaines-Cirelli, that Christianity “reveals a different kind of power…not domination, not control, a power that gently breaks in and beckons us toward life.”
May we lean into our future life and rebuild a democracy which truly embodies the values we share. Imagine safety on our streets and in our schools, affordable access to healthcare, enough resources to meet our needs, and welcome and belonging for the stranger and our families into community.
And isn’t that a vision that we all yearn for?
Stacey Schamber works for the International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) which spearheads the Women’s Alliance for Security Leadership (WASL). She holds Masters degrees in Social Work and Theological Studies.
Keep ReadingShow less

AI is transforming finance, government, and society. As Congress considers new technology laws, the future of democratic oversight depends on wisdom, foresight, and political will.
ispyfriend/Getty Images
Can Congress Govern Disruptive Technology?
Aug 10, 2026
Imagine waking up one day to find your bank account frozen because an AI system has incorrectly identified you as a fraud risk. There is no human to call, only another algorithm reviewing your appeal. Hours later, the error is corrected, but the damage has already been done.
Who is actually in charge?
What once sounded like science fiction is rapidly becoming reality as artificial intelligence assumes decisions once reserved for human judgment.
As Congress responds to disruptive technologies ranging from cryptocurrencies to artificial intelligence, it is considering proposals such as the CLARITY Act and the Great American AI Act of 2026.
That is important. But the deeper question is not simply how to regulate emerging technologies. It is whether we still possess the wisdom, foresight, and will to govern ourselves now that we wield tools capable of transforming economic, political, and social life.
Congress has governed earlier technological revolutions, from railroads to nuclear power to the internet. The hardest task has always been overcoming the human failings that keep us from acting wisely when change arrives.
Polarization, misinformation, concentrated power, greed, and political tribalism all predated AI. It did not create these problems. It magnifies them.
Artificial intelligence changes the scale of our choices, not the nature of the people making them.
The real question, then, is not whether Congress can regulate disruptive technologies. It is whether we can govern ourselves while wielding tools that amplify both our greatest strengths and our oldest weaknesses.
The Current Debate
Congress is beginning to confront this challenge on multiple fronts.
Sponsored by Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) with bipartisan support, the CLARITY Act seeks to bring greater certainty to digital asset markets by clarifying the responsibilities of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Its goal is to encourage financial innovation while establishing clearer rules and stronger investor protections.
The Great American AI Act of 2026, released as a bipartisan discussion draft by Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) and Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), proposes a broad federal framework for AI governance. It addresses transparency, safety, cybersecurity, research, workforce development, fraud, AI literacy, and the division of authority between federal and state governments.
Together, the proposals show Congress confronting a succession of disruptive innovations. One seeks rules for the future of finance. The other seeks oversight of technology increasingly capable of making decisions once reserved for human beings.
Their larger significance lies in what they acknowledge: technological change is accelerating across several domains, and democratic government must find a way to keep pace.
Yet no statute can supply the wisdom to understand every consequence, the foresight to anticipate every unintended outcome, or the will to act before those outcomes become crises.
An Old Problem in a New Form
Every generation believes its defining technology is unprecedented. Railroads compressed distance. Electricity transformed industry. Nuclear weapons gave humanity the capacity to destroy itself. The internet democratized information while making misinformation instantaneous. AI may reshape how we work, learn, create, govern, and decide.
Each breakthrough has expanded human power. None has expanded human wisdom at the same pace.
That is the paradox of progress: our technological capabilities advance rapidly while our capacity to govern them advances slowly, if at all.
The Founders understood the underlying dilemma. As James Madison observed in Federalist No. 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” The problem of self-government has never been technology itself. It has always been human nature.
Institutions can adapt. Harder is ensuring that those who create, regulate, and use new technologies wield them responsibly. Can human character keep pace with human capability?
That challenge comes down to three qualities: wisdom to understand what is at stake, foresight to anticipate consequences, and political will to act before events force our hand.
Wisdom: Asking the Right Questions
Wisdom begins by recognizing that not every technological advance automatically serves the public good. Societies often become captivated by what can be built before asking what should be built. Markets reward innovation. Politics rewards speed. Neither necessarily rewards reflection.
The goal is not to slow innovation, but to keep it accountable to democratic values. We should ask whether new technologies protect human dignity, preserve liberty, and broaden opportunity. Those are political questions, not technical ones, and they cannot be delegated to algorithms.
Foresight: Seeing Beyond the Immediate
Disruptive technologies rarely produce only the outcomes their creators intend. Social media promised connection but accelerated polarization and misinformation. The internet democratized knowledge while weakening traditional gatekeepers of truth. AI will also bring extraordinary benefits alongside consequences we cannot fully predict.
Democratic government cannot foresee every outcome. It can, however, think beyond the next election, anticipate second- and third-order effects, and build institutions able to adapt. Waiting until problems become crises is not governance. It is damage control.
Will: The Hardest Democratic Virtue
Wisdom identifies the problem. Foresight anticipates its consequences. Political will turns understanding into action.
This is democracy’s hardest test. Short-term incentives, partisan conflict, and powerful economic interests make it easier to postpone difficult decisions than to confront them.
Effective governance requires leaders willing to act before disaster makes action unavoidable, businesses willing to accept rules that sustain public trust, and citizens willing to value long-term democratic resilience over short-term convenience.
Conclusion
The debate over AI and other disruptive technologies is ultimately not about machines. It is about us.
The two proposals are attempts to keep democratic government relevant in a rapidly changing world. Their deeper lesson is that every generation must decide whether its institutions and civic character can keep pace with technology.
That is the paradox of progress. We continue to invent tools that extend human power while leaving the harder work of cultivating wisdom, foresight, and political will unfinished.
The question is no longer whether these technologies will become more powerful. They will. The question is the one posed at the beginning: Who is actually in charge? If the answer is to remain “the American people,” then our democracy must govern these technologies before they govern us.
Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less

An immigrant woman detained by ICE since February says that she has received limited medical care despite repeatedly voicing concerns that she may have had a miscarriage while at the detention center.
National Immigrant Justice Center
Lawmakers Push for Immigrant Woman’s Release and Medical Records After Suspected Miscarriage
Aug 10, 2026
Lawmakers are seeking the release of an immigrant woman who says that — despite pleading for help after experiencing bleeding and severe pain, indications of a possible miscarriage — she has received limited medical care in detention.
“This is URGENT, please. I am pregnant and have been bleeding since yesterday, Saturday the 21st. It is vaginal bleeding. I am pregnant, and I am scared for the baby; I am also experiencing pain in my lower back, hips and abdomen. I am under a great deal of stress. Thank you. Please help me,” she wrote in Spanish in an emergency medicine request in late March that was shared with The 19th.
The woman was taken to a nearby hospital that day, where she was admitted for a suspected miscarriage. There, she was told she was not pregnant and that her pregnancy hormone levels challenged the idea that she had been. Despite repeated requests, neither the lawmakers pushing for the woman’s release nor her attorney have been able to access or review her medical records, leaving her in the dark about what actual care she may have received and what could have happened to her pregnancy, including whether she had a very early miscarriage.
Anabell, who asked through her lawyer that her last name be withheld due to safety concerns, met Monday with Democratic Reps. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin and Delia Ramirez of Illinois. The lawmakers visited Kentucky-based Campbell County Detention Center after hearing complaints alleging that the center had provided inadequate medical care.
Neither Immigration and Customs Enforcement nor the Department of Homeland Security responded to a request for comment about Anabell’s medical care, medical records and the availability of prenatal care at the facility.
The visit came months after the Department of Homeland Security, in the face of public pressure, released data showing that almost 500 pregnant, nursing or postpartum people had been detained between January 2025 and mid-February of this year; at the time, DHS reported that 16 miscarriages had taken place in detention facilities. Anabell’s suspected miscarriage would not have been included in that count.
DHS has come under heavy scrutiny for its treatment of pregnant, nursing and postpartum detainees, with multiple women saying they received poor or limited health care, had minimal follow-up for potential pregnancy complications, and struggled to acquire records of any medical care provided while in detention facilities. The department, which oversees ICE, has said the agency gives detainees “the best healthcare many of these individuals have received in their entire lives.” Federal policy says that DHS should detain pregnant, postpartum and nursing individuals only in limited circumstances.
Anabell tested positive for pregnancy on two separate tests after she arrived at the detention center; then, weeks later, she began to cramp and bleed, according to her lawyer and her own account as told to the two lawmakers. Federal policy dictates that women of childbearing age should typically be provided with a pregnancy test upon being detained in case they may require special food or medical care.
Anabell’s account, which has not been publicly reported, comes less than 100 days before an election in which voters appear increasingly dissatisfied with Republicans’ approach on immigration policy.
Federal policy dictates that detainees with a positive pregnancy test should be taken for a visit with a qualified medical professional — such as a doctor or a nurse practitioner — within 72 hours. Anabell told her lawyers and lawmakers that she received no medical prenatal care and was not provided with prenatal vitamins.
Anabell also told her lawyer that at one point, when she moved holding cells, she was tasked with carrying her mattress and a heavy bin with her personal belongings. Copies of several meal stickers affixed to her food throughout the month of March, shared with The 19th by her lawyer, show that the agency was offering a modified diet: “Special Diet Details: Medical Diet. Pregnancy/High Protein.”
Copies of several meal stickers affixed to Anabell’s food throughout the month of March, shared with The 19th by her lawyer, show that the Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency was offering a modified diet. (National Immigrant Justice Center)
Anabell immigrated to the United States from Nicaragua in 2022 and settled in Milwaukee, where, her lawyer said, she was working in food service. She is petitioning for asylum in the United States; her claim for asylum was scheduled for a hearing last week before it was postponed because of scheduling issues.
It’s still unclear what, exactly, happened to Anabell. When her bleeding began, Anabell told her lawyer and the lawmakers, she was given sanitary pads. At the hospital, they cast doubt on if she had been pregnant. Typically, people who experience a miscarriage have elevated hormone levels for several weeks afterward, which Anabell did not have. Ten days later, she was taken back to the hospital where her lawyer said she received pain medication. Her lawyer said she has not received medical care since, despite continuing to experience pain, numbness, vomiting and hair loss.
Anabell’s lawyers have made requests for her medical records to both ICE and the detention facility, and neither of those requests has been fulfilled. Reps. Moore and Ramirez also drafted a medical release form signed by the detainee and presented it to the facility Monday; they have not yet received the records, either.
“We don’t have any access to her medical records. They keep sort of passing us back and forth,” said Colleen Ward, a lawyer with the National Immigrant Justice Center who is representing Anabell. “She hasn’t been able to see her records and it leaves questions for her about what kind of medical care she needs and what actually is going on in her body. She’s had this very traumatic, very painful experience, and she has these ongoing symptoms. There’s a real denial in the jail that any of this even happened.”
People detained by ICE are legally entitled to records of any medical care provided while they are in federal custody, and DHS says it provides medical records to any detainee who requests them. But formerly detained women and immigration attorneys alike have called the process of obtaining those records cumbersome, and in some cases functionally unworkable.
“Her attorney can’t get the medical information, and Anabell herself can’t get the medical information. In the meantime, they’re denying that she had a miscarriage. She has since been in pain, back pain, and they tell her that if she needs any medical treatment, she needs to go to the commissary and buy some pain medication,” Moore said in an interview after the visit.
Without medical records, it’s difficult to say what may have happened to Anabell, including whether her bleeding may have been a delayed symptom of a much earlier, undetected miscarriage, said Amanda Heffernan, a longtime nurse-midwife and professor of midwifery at Seattle University. But had Anabell received regular health care — including a doctor’s visit upon her positive pregnancy test and possibly a follow up a few weeks later — it would likely have been easier to assess what actually happened to her and follow up appropriately.
Data released by the Department of Homeland Security shows that almost 500 pregnant, nursing or postpartum women had been detained between January 2025 and mid-February of this year. (National Immigrant Justice Center)
“You’ve decided you’re going to detain pregnant people? You’re responsible for providing proper care, but the system isn’t designed for the consistency and promptness that proper care requires,” Heffernan said.
Already, numerous women have said that they received inconsistent or inadequate prenatal care while in ICE detention — including when experiencing pain or bleeding.
Moore and Ramirez described an emotional and complicated scene when they visited with Anabell on Monday.
“We asked, could we just please have a typical weekly menu to see the offerings, and that was not provided,” Moore said. “In a room that they called a kind of a triage for medical problems, they had a dirty mattress on it, and they told me that it was not dirty; it was just stained.”
Ramirez introduced a resolution in December calling on the Trump administration to permanently reinstate policies protecting pregnant immigrants and to closely monitor reproductive health care quality and access across all detention facilities.
“Watching Anabell walk into that room and fall into the arms of Congresswoman Moore weeping just was really heartbreaking for me,” Ramirez said. “Today is a perfect example why this legislation is so incredibly important.”
Lawmakers Push for Immigrant Woman’s Release and Medical Records After Suspected Miscarriage was originally published by The 19th and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More















