Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, September 13, 2019
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Max Mittleman
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
“
Some say the world will
end in fire, some say in
ice,” as poet Robert Frost
once said. However, I believe
there are three threats that
will be humanity’s downfall:
food,
waste
and
blood.
Unfortunately, the “friendly
little bubble” around Ann
Arbor is not enough to shelter
the city from the plague of
collegiate
food
insecurity,
food waste and national blood
shortages. At first glance, it
may seem these public health
threats belong in different
categories and should inspire
separate solutions. However,
there
is
an
intersection
between all three of these
issues that would provide the
opportunity to create a single
solution that could combat
all three problems at once. In
other words, I am betting that
you can kill three plagues with
one stone. Before I make my
case for a solution, I figured
I ought to break down each
problem first.
First
and
foremost,
I
understand that college is an
investment for your future.
However, it is ridiculous for
an investor to go hungry in
order to see a return on their
investment.
Nevertheless,
according to a 2015 study by
Nikki Kasper, “41.4 percent
of U-M students had low
to very low food security.”
Low food security is defined
by
the
U.S.
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services as “the disruption
of food intake because of
lack
of
money
and
other
resources.”
Unfortunately,
the
University’s
response
to this issue has been less
than urgent. In recent years,
multiple
food
pantries
on
campus allowed students to
scramble alongside hundreds
of peers once a month to
secure free food in what can
only be called the actual
Hunger Games. According to
The Daily, starting in fall 2019,
Maize and Blue Cupboard
food
pantry
will
begin
offering daily distribution of
nutritious food and produce
at a permanent location on
Central
Campus.
However,
the question still remains as
to whether these efforts alone
can satisfy all the hungry
students on campus.
Luckily,
on
a
college
campus,
where
there
is
scarcity there is also surplus.
According to MLive, in the
spring of 2018, Sava’s did not
have enough dumpsters to
hold all of its waste. It doesn’t
take a master’s degree to
understand that a good portion
of that waste was leftover
food. I recognize that not all
food waste can be recovered
safely. If food is no longer
safe for human consumption,
of course, a restaurant should
responsibly dispose of it or
compost it. However, not all
food is unsafe for consumption
when it is thrown away. It
seems
rather
ironic
that
dozens
of
restaurants
and
cafes like Sava’s are throwing
away food every day when they
are just steps from a campus
where more than 41 percent
of students are food insecure.
Sava’s is only one of dozens
of local restaurants and cafes
that benefit from the endless
foot traffic the University
of
Michigan
supplies
to
keep their businesses open.
Consequently, it would be
worth asking them to donate
leftover food back to local
students who need it the
most and give it back it to
the community that supports
their bottom line.
Beyond
just
food
insecurity, there is also a
constant
need
for
blood
donations. It seems that every
summer there is a drought of
blood donors, largely due to
the fact that school is out and
a great deal of students no
longer make time to donate.
According to a U-M Health
Blog post, these “nationwide
blood shortages … (leave)
doctors
and
emergency
room personnel without the
resources for some surgeries
and procedures.”
In essence, students have
the blood and empty bellies
while
local
restaurants
have the food and should be
motivated by the prospect
of giving back. I propose
creating a digital platform
that
enables
students
to
subscribe to reserve and pick
up extra food that would
otherwise go to the landfill
from
restaurants
in
Ann
Arbor.
Instead
of
money,
however, the subscription fee
for this service would be to
donate blood regularly, every
two months throughout the
year and particularly during
the summer and winter when
blood
shortages
are
most
likely to occur. If students
don’t
qualify
as
blood
donors, perhaps they could
donate their time at blood
drives or solicit someone
to donate in their name to
satisfy
the
subscription
fee. Restaurant employees
could identify students who
are active donors through a
special discount card mailed
to them every two months
or a smartphone QR code
sent to the students’ email.
According to Kasper, some
studies
have
found
that
limited free time and lack of
transportation may also be
barriers to food, so perhaps
the digital platform could
provide delivery to students
for a small fee.
When it comes to public
health issues, extra food
pantries established by the
University
are
not
going
to be enough. As a student
body, we have the power to
take matters into our own
hands and problem solve. As
a society, when we examine
public
health
issues,
we
often section them off, try to
isolate their specific causes
and
brainstorm
solutions
independent from each other.
Such a practice is as outdated
as the bubonic plague itself.
When studying public health
issues
independently,
it’s
easy to fail to see the big
picture
or
recognize
how
they can intersect. It’s kind
of like trying to navigate to a
new location by only looking
at a fraction of the map. If
most of your map is covered,
then you are going to miss
an intersection that could
make it easier to get to your
destination — which, in this
case, is hungry students, less
landfill waste and reduced
blood shortages. The reality is,
if you are willing to challenge
conventional
thinking
and
break the silos we keep around
separate public health threats,
you will find connections.
Public health is far too complex
an issue to try to isolate
problems.
Turns
out
that
mapping out a social venture
that can combat public health
threats is as simple as finding
the connection between public
health problems. Who knows,
maybe your next social venture
is just an intersection away.
SONEIDA RODRIGUEZ | COLUMN
Collegiate food insecurity is the key to blood security
E
arlier this week, Maine
made headlines as the
state’s legislature passed
a bill introducing a substantial
electoral reform to the state’s
presidential
primaries
and
elections. The bill institutes ranked-
choice voting, a system that allows
voters to rank their preference
of candidates for a position and
takes all of these preferences into
account in the final result. In short,
ranked-choice voting is likely to
lead to elections that better reflect
voters’ preferences, allow for more
diversity of candidates and reduce
vote-splitting. Recognizing this,
Democratic parties in six other
states have plans to implement
measures similar to Maine’s in their
upcoming presidential primaries.
Also, this month, the field of
possible Democratic presidential
nominees was effectively cut in half.
Out of the 20 candidates present on
the stage of the second debate, only
10 met the requirements for polling
and donations set by the Democratic
National Committee to qualify for
the third. With the Iowa caucus
still far off, similar polling cut-offs
are likely to be used by the DNC
to further narrow the field in the
future.
Watching these two events
occur in tandem, it seems strange
that the moves being made by
Maine Democrats to reform actual
elections haven’t been reflected
in these debate qualifiers. In the
weeks since the second debate, the
polls used in the DNC’s cut-offs
have served as a sort of pre-election,
defining the candidates that voters
will and will not get to choose in the
future. And while the 10 candidates
eliminated in this round were all
unlikely to win, these polling cut-
offs will become much higher
stakes as the field narrows. This
is especially true for the “second
tier” of candidates — those who are
not frontrunners but have a shot at
becoming one in the future. At this
point, that’s essentially everyone
other than former Vice President
Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders,
I-Vt., and Sen. Warren, D-Mass.
These candidates may be victims
of the same problem that Democrats
in Maine and other states are trying
to solve with ranked-choice voting.
In one of the polls used by the
DNC to determine the candidates
for the third debate, CNN asked
respondents to indicate both their
first choice for a nominee and
the candidate that they are next
most interested in hearing from.
The results show an enormous
discrepancy between voters’ first
and second choices, revealing some
candidates to be significantly more
popular than they initially seem.
For example, in April polling, Sen.
Kamala Harris, D-Calif., garnering
only 5 percent of first-choice votes,
beat out the three frontrunners
by being listed as 23 percent of
voters’ less preferred choice. In fact,
almost all candidates other than the
frontrunners appear substantially
more popular once second choices
are taken into account, while Biden
and Sanders seem to perform worse.
Essentially, this indicates that
while most voters prefer Biden,
Sanders or Warren as their top
choice, many of them wouldn’t
choose one of the other three
frontrunners as their second choice.
Another one of the qualifying polls
confirmed this: Morning Consult
explicitly asked supporters of the
top candidates to indicate their
second-choice preference. About
half of supporters of the top three
candidates did not list one of the
other three frontrunners as their
second choice.
This means that the results of
subsequent polling cutoffs may
be significantly different between
traditional
and
ranked-choice
voting mechanisms. While I wish
I could tell you how the results
would be different, the problem
of ignoring voters’ second-choices
is too entrenched to allow that.
None of the polls used by the DNC
published detailed results of voters’
second choices, and most of the ones
I looked at didn’t ask about second
choices at all.
Ultimately, this problem extends
beyond the cut-offs for the primary
debates and into the way we cover
and discuss elections. Polls aren’t
just hurdles for candidates to jump
over on their way to the debate
stage. They are also one of the
primary ways voters, politicians and
commentators try to understand
what is going on in elections. The
results of polls can go viral, thrusting
candidates into the spotlight and
giving their prospects a boost, as
happened when a single poll earlier
this month contradicted all others
by finding Warren tied with Sanders
and Biden among Democratic
voters. Furthermore, the campaigns
themselves are influenced by polling
data in developing their messaging
and policy.
If polls ignore voters’ second
choices, they can make some
candidates, like Harris and Mayor
Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.,
seem substantially less popular
than they actually are (and others,
like Sanders, more so). If polls
only incentivize candidates to
make attention-grabbing, radical
statements to accumulate more
first-choice followers, it may lead
them to ignore building a broadly
supported
platform
that
will
actually get people out to vote in the
general election.
At a time when the Democratic
party is increasingly fractured,
and winning the general election
has never seemed more important,
these could be costly mistakes.
The good news is that substantive
change need not wait on the
lengthy legislative processes faced
by states like Maine attempting to
institute ranked-choice policies in
actual elections. The DNC could
immediately
require
qualifying
polls to ask more questions about
voters’ second and third choices.
Even if subsequent debate cut-
offs
don’t
use
ranked-choice
mechanisms, altering the polls
alone would instantly deepen our
understanding of the election and
the public conversation about it.
Doing so now, before the field
narrows further, could shape the
outcome of both the primaries and
the general election.
Debate qualifying polls should use ranked-choice voting
Soneida Rodriguez can be reached at
soneida@umich.edu.
ISABELLE SCHINDLER | COLUMN
The Trump administration’s attack on reproductive rights
JARED STOLOVE | COLUMN
T
hese days, it feels like
barely a week goes by
without President Donald
Trump’s administration enacting
another barrier for women making
personal family planning decisions.
The most recent is somewhat dry
and complicated but still undeniably
dangerous for women’s health.
In 1970, the Title X funding
program was signed into law by
President Richard Nixon. This
program provides funds for clinics
across America to help offer family
planning and other reproductive
health
services
to
low-income
communities. Forty percent of the
people served by Title X funding
receive their care through Planned
Parenthood clinics.
This, however, is about to change
due to a new directive from the
Trump administration. In February
2019, the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services issued a new
rule that bars any organization
receiving Title X funding from
referring
patients
to
abortion
providers. After months of court
battles, this change has been allowed
to go through.
Planned Parenthood has likened
this new policy to a gag rule and said
that they cannot accept any more
Title X funds if doing so will prevent
them from referring their patients to
abortion services.
This withdrawal from Title X by
Planned Parenthood is set to have a
detrimental impact on low-income
communities across Michigan and
the United States at large. Planned
Parenthood provides nearly 40
percent of patients under Title X
funding, delivering much-needed
care to nearly 1.6 million Americans
annually.
Planned Parenthood of Michigan
has said the loss of Title X funding
will have a major impact on the
state. Currently, 70 percent of Title
X services in Michigan are handled
by Planned Parenthood. The loss of
Title X funds is estimated to impact
42,000 Michiganders who receive
low-cost
health
services
from
Planned Parenthood. This loss of
care will be felt especially in certain
counties, such as right here in
Washtenaw County, where the only
health care facility offering Title X
coverage is Planned Parenthood.
While abortion opponents have
accused Planned Parenthood of
playing
politics
with
women’s
health, the real fault lies in the
hands of the Trump administration
for implementing this dangerous
law, knowing full well the negative
impact it will have.
Despite Planned Parenthood’s
warnings about the potential loss
of Title X funding following the
gag rule, the Trump administration
pushed ahead with this policy,
leaving Planned Parenthood no
choice but to back out.
The importance of Planned
Parenthood
being
allowed
to
refer patients to abortion services
cannot be overstated, especially
given the recent rise in misleading
crisis pregnancy centers. Crisis
pregnancy centers are organizations
that push false narratives to try
to coerce women into not having
abortions. In 2015, The National
Abortion Rights Action League
witnessed this firsthand during an
undercover investigation of crisis
pregnancy centers in California.
NARAL reported workers at the
crisis pregnancy centers telling
patients patently false information,
including that abortion is linked to
breast cancer and infertility, neither
of which is true.
These centers often advertise
online and make it seem as if they
are impartial organizations. For
women dealing with the stress of an
unwanted pregnancy, it can be hard
to determine which organizations
are legitimate abortion providers
and which are not.
This action is another example
of
the
Trump
administration
putting partisan politics ahead of
the health of Americans. Whether
it be attempting to defund Planned
Parenthood or this new directive,
this administration has been
relentless
in
chipping
away
reproductive health care.
This
laser-like
focus
on
restricting reproductive health
care is emblematic of the rapidly
changing
Republican
party.
Republican
President
Richard
Nixon signed this legislation into
law, but that has not stopped the
Republicans of today from gutting
the law. As the Republican party
becomes more conservative, we
see ordinary people who simply
want control of their bodies caught
in the crosshairs. This is especially
true with Title X funding, which
has helped so many people.
The funds used from Title
X provide services desperately
needed by so many Americans, from
birth control to cancer screenings.
In fact, a 2010 study concluded that
the Title X program was highly
effective and prevented 2.2 million
unintended pregnancies, 99,100
cases of chlamydia and 410 HIV
infections. These numbers prove
the importance of these services
and the sheer backwardness of the
Trump administration’s new rule.
As students, we cannot sit by as
millions of Americans lose their
access to this critically important
care. Though Planned Parenthood
is committed to making up for this
major loss of funding, this will be no
small feat, especially in Michigan.
Currently, Planned Parenthood
is “deprioritized” for receiving state
funding. If you feel strongly that this
is not all right, then write to your
state representatives, get involved
with abortion groups here on
campus and, most importantly, vote,
not only in the presidential election
but also in down-ballot races.
Here in Michigan, many of our
fellow citizens are at risk of losing
their care. This cannot stand.
We must continue to raise our
voices against this new policy and
advocate for the state of Michigan
to allocate more funds to help make
up the difference in Title X funds.
This is the only way to ensure all
Michiganders have access to the
health care they deserve.
Isabelle Schindler can be reached
at ischind@umich.edu.
Jared Stolove can be reached at
jstolove@umich.edu.
ATTEND A MASS MEETING
Join The Michigan Daily! We will be holding mass
meetings at 7 p.m. in the Newsroom, 420 Maynard
Street on September 12, 15 and 18. Come browse the
different sections and learn more about the paper.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
This administration
has been relentless
in chipping away
reproductive health
care