Emails from Another Dimension

While doing some research on an article, one of my searches tapped into some alternate dimension. At first, I was elated to discover such an amazing phenomenon, but the interdimensional wormhole only lasted a few minutes. Before the breach closed, I was able to cut and paste an email exchange that made its way to that universe’s headlines. This alternate version of the universe was much like our own and had elected their own President Trump. As such, the email exchange starts off the same. But as the email chain continues, the differences become clear . . .

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.


Rob Goldstone

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:

Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment and can’t speak on the phone, but I don’t think we’ll be able to meet at all. We’re running for federal office here so we have to do things differently. I’m not just acting on behalf of the Trump brand anymore. If it’s what you say I’m pretty sure we have to drop it.



On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:55, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:

Going to touch base with Jared about this and maybe a few of our folks from inside the beltway. Please don’t present this to Sr. (or Rhona) at all until I get back to you.

Thanks for understanding,


From: Rob Goldstone
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 12:40 PM
To: Donald Trump, Jr.
Subject: Re: Russia – Clinton – private and confidential

Hi Don,

Let me know when you are free to talk with Emin by phone about this Hillary info – wanted to try to schedule a time and day

Best to you and family Rob Goldstone

From: Donald Trump, Jr.
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 12:42 PM
To: Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort
Subject: Fwd: Re: Russia – Clinton – private and confidential

Hey guys, bringing you in the loop here. Please see the exchange below. It’s Goldstone again, this time he’s not just dropping hints. I don’t want to jeopardize any of our relationships, but at this point in the campaign we really can’t ignore something so explicit.  Is he seriously offering us Russian intelligence?

Leaving out the D for now, let’s keep the candidate uncontaminated.

From: Jared Kushner
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 12:51 PM
To: Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Sr.
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Russia – Clinton – private and confidential

Wow. When Flynn warned us about this kind of thing I didn’t believe him, but there it is.  Not sure what the hell Goldstone was thinking. He knows the door is closed on everything til either the campaign is over with or D’s term ends. He sat there nodding along with everybody else when we met about the divestment plan.

Yeah, give Goldstone a hard NO. It cannot even look like we’re colluding. And we’re gonna have to tell somebody. This would go to DOJ right? I’ll ask Flynn.

As long as we’re transparent we should be fine. cc’ing the D.

– J Man

From: Donald Trump, Sr.
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 1:22 PM
To: Donald Trump, Jr, Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: Re: Russia – Clinton – private and confidential

HOLY SMOKES! Thought Emin and company could follow the rules. Guess not. Sad.

Not fun, but gotta go to authorities. My campaign = OPEN BOOK. We don’t want foreign powers colluding with anybody’s campaign. Believe me, I know.

No worries. Could be good for us long term. We’re doing the right thing here! Saying NO to the Russians? This will play great in the press. I’ll have Kellyanne whip something up.

GOOD CATCH Don Junior! Really proud of you.


– The D

Profile: Speaker of the Assembly Robin Vos

By Madelon Wise

Robin Vos.

You’ve heard the name, but perhaps, like me, you know nothing about him. He has been in the news lately because of his rather public quarrel with Scott Walker over transportation in the 2017-2019 state budget. Vos has stated publicly via a Twitter exchange with Governor Scott  Walker that he fundamentally disagrees with Walker’s stance on whether to tax gasoline. Vos is in favor of the tax, whereas Walker staunchly refuses to implement it. Although the two very conservative Republicans have long agreed on most issues, the fissure on transportation continues.


Vos has been a Republican member of the Wisconsin State Assembly since 2005, representing the 63rd district (which includes the communities of Rochester, Burlington, Town of Burlington, Yorkville, Dover, Union Grove, Mount Pleasant, and Sturtevant). Vos is the co-chair of the Wisconsin Joint Finance Committee, along with Senator Alberta Darling.

The State Assembly is the lower house of the Wisconsin Legislature. Together with the smaller Wisconsin Senate, it constitutes the legislative branch of Wisconsin’s government. Every citizen of Wisconsin is represented by two legislators, elected by the people in their area: one in the Assembly, and one in the Senate. Robin Vos is the Speaker of the Assembly, meaning he was elected by the other representatives.

Before joining the Legislature, Vos was a congressional district director and legislative assistant,  a member of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents (1989 to 1991), and a member of the Racine County Board (1994 to 2004). In his home town of Burlington, Vos is a busy member of groups like the Rotary Club (past president), Racine/Kenosha Farm Bureau, Knights of Columbus, Racine County Republican Party, Racine Area Manufacturers and Commerce, Union Grove Chamber of Commerce, and Burlington Chamber of Commerce.

Outside Politics

Outside of politics, Vos is the small business owner of RoJo’s Popcorn. The name of the popcorn company brings to mind another right-wing politician, but as far as I can determine Vos did not name his company for his buddy Ron Johnson. Remember the “cookie law” that attempted to ban people from selling homemade baked goods from their kitchens? Vos introduced this law, although it was struck down as unconstitutional by a Lafayette County judge. Apparently, he doesn’t want anybody else selling snacks.

While his wife sells the popcorn, Vos serves on several committees, including the Committee on Assembly Organization (Chair), Committee on Employment Relations (Chair), Committee on Rules, Joint Committee on Employment Relations (Co-Chair), Joint Committee on Legislative Organization (Co-Chair), Joint Legislative Council, Committee on Assembly Organization (Chair), Committee on Employment Relations (Chair), Committee on Rules, Joint Committee on Employment Relations (Co-Chair), Joint Committee on Legislative Organization (Co-Chair), and the Joint Legislative Council.

ALEC & Past Legislation

Robin Vos is the current ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) public sector co-chair of Wisconsin, along with Representative Scott Suder and Koch lobbyist Amy Boyer. The must-read ALEC Exposed: The Hijacking of a State put out by the Center for Media and Democracy, describes ALEC in this way:

“ALEC brings elected representatives together with lobbyists from global businesses to approve cookie-cutter legislation – that often benefits those same corporations – for introduction in state capitols from Madison to Montgomery to Tallahassee, regardless of the distinct traditions and interests of the constituents in each state.”

The report goes on to document how ALEC distributes money through a complicated “scholarship fund,” keeps secrets, buys legislators, pays no taxes, and has been at the helm of the systematic reddening of our once-liberal state. The legislation brought forth by ALEC has been implemented in most states, strategically putting forth an agenda that made a Donald Trump presidency possible. An open records request revealed the names of donors, and the top contributors include AT&T, the drug manufacturer trade group PhRMA, T-Mobile, Kraft, Exxon Mobil, US Tobacco, and of course, the Koch brothers and other right-wing groups, foundations, and trade groups.

Through ALEC’s backing, Vos has introduced numerous pieces of legislation, including a Voter ID bill, which was temporarily struck down but upheld on appeal. and the “Health Care Freedom Amendment,” a joint resolution for a constitutional amendment that prohibited the legislature from requiring individuals to obtain health insurance.

Of major bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Vos, the only surprise was WI SB10, “definition of tetrahydrocannabinols and the use of cannabidiol.” This bill passed, ensuring that children with seizures could use a plant substance to help with their illness.

Current Legislation

Presently in committee is Assembly Bill 299, “regarding the free expression within the University of Wisconsin System, providing an exemption from rule-making procedures, and granting rule-making authority.” Cutting away the legalize, this bill would penalize “boisterous,” “unreasonably loud” protest behavior at campus events. Students who speak out or protest at events could be expelled. The “Campus Free Speech Act” was produced by the Goldwater Institute, an Arizona-based think tank whose operations are underwritten by some of the largest right-wing funders including the Koch and Walton foundations.

Another Vos-proposed piece, WI SB216, would lower wages for private sector employees working on public projects. This bill is also in committee.

What Vos opposes is as interesting as what he favors. He’s spoken against LRB-2248/1, the Compassionate Choices Act, introduced on March 8, 2017, by State Senator Fred Risser (D-Madison) and Representatives Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) and Sondy Pope (D-Cross Plains).

The proposal is modeled after Oregon’s “death with dignity” law, passed in 1997. California, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington also allow the practice. The lawmakers behind Wisconsin’s bill cited a May 2016 Gallup poll that found 69 percent of Americans believe doctors should be able to painlessly end a terminally ill patient’s life if requested.

I hope you have enjoyed learning, along with me, about Robin Vos.

After completing this research, I have a clearer idea of how and why my beloved state has changed so drastically.

RTT Update: 07-18-2017

This week we met with State Senator Mark Miller to discuss unions and the future of the progressive movement in Wisconsin.

Mark: I have read about the Indivisible movement in the papers and I’ve been so happy to see this taking place all over the country. I know that there have been lots of set backs since Act 10, I was the Democratic leader then, but I’m pleased to see the sustained energy.

Question: Which do you think has the larger impact on the people of Wisconsin: union issues or redistricting and voter suppression.

Mark: Not everyone appreciates the importance of unions. Unions are one part of relieving economic distress. If you can negotiate pay it is easier to raise wages. This is how you can raise household income. For many people, for example the ones who voted for Trump, this is not as big of an issue. Some of these people feel left behind by the economy due to short comings in our policies. These are the same people that voted for Obama before, but voted for Trump due to economic distress. So people are impacted by both, but unions are not on their radar as much.

Question: Is there a way to have progressive feet on the ground against gerrymandering and ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council)?

Mark: People don’t always want to hear about these issues from politicians like myself, they typically prefer to hear it from neighbors. That is why grass root efforts like this are important. Compared to how we used to be, we are so extremely divided into camps now. When I first ran for office it was split about one third of people would always vote Democrat, one third would always vote Republican, and the middle is where the decisions would be made. Now the split is more like 45% Democrat and 45% Republican, and the remaining 10% in the middle swings it. Focus on the Wisconsin Supreme Court races. The transparency (or lack of transparency) of money in politics is an important issue that the Supreme Court would help. If we focus on this race it could be a way to allow for more disclosure.

Question: There is a proposal out about Badger care for all. What are your thoughts?

Mark: This would allow people to buy into Wisconsin’s version of Medicaid. I am already signed on and support this. When I was a private employer, my ability to provide benefits for my employees relied on how we did the previous year. If our profits were down, coverage for pregnancy was typically dropped because we couldn’t afford it. I did not like this. If you are a citizen of an industrialized area, you should have health insurance.

Question: What are you working on right now and what are your areas of focus?

Mark: My main focus is on elections and environmental issues. Elections are fundamental to our democracy and should be determined by the campaign and not unknown third-party money. We should also have public funding for Supreme Court races. I have also been active in working on issues of water management in the Central Sands area of Wisconsin.

Rep. Mark Pocan has also encouraged us to create a Progressive Caucus in the State Senate and we are moving forward with this idea. You’ll be hearing more about this in the future. We will introduce progressive legislature and have a core of people who can meet with groups like yours.

Don’t Pull UNFPA Funding

by Maya Williamson Shaffer

I’m writing to oppose the Trump administration’s decision to end funding for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, which provides essential health services to women worldwide. To end funding is to rob them of basic human rights.

Sexual and reproductive health problems are a leading cause of death and disability for women in developing countries. This lost funding could prevent the deaths of 77,000 children and improve the lives of countless women. UN officials have warned that large funding cuts to organizations like UNFPA could trigger global instability and hinder our fight on issues like terrorism. Finally, no matter your opinion on abortion, funding for UNFPA should not be cut because of it. For good or ill, abortion is a right of women in the United States, as established 44 years ago in Roe vs Wade.

As a fifteen-year-old girl, I believe that women worldwide deserve the same basic rights as women like me in the United States. To strip them of a right that we enjoy would not only be hypocrisy, but would contradict the very ideals of our country. Ending funding to the UNFPA is more than irresponsible and immoral.

It is un-American.

Trump Leaves Our Democracy Undefended

By Paul Martorell

It should be a national security priority to protect our nation’s elections and institutions from hostile foreign attacks. However, how can we defend our democracy if the commander in chief doesn’t take these threats seriously?  
Despite the consensus of all US intelligence agencies, Trump continues to dispute whether Vladimir Putin and Russia are responsible for the 2016 cyber intrusion. When a reporter asked Sean Spicer if President Trump believes that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, Spicer said he had not even asked Trump.  
Earlier in June, former FBI Director Comey testified that (despite the number of times Trump tried to meet with him) he could not recall a single instance of Trump asking him how to best defend the nation’s electoral infrastructure. It’s alarming how little the Trump administration is doing to protect our democracy and sovereignty.
The schemes that Russia deployed (hacking communications, spreading social media disinformation and even penetrating voter registration files) threaten elections in 2018 and beyond. President Trump is betraying his oath of office to protect the nation. And Republicans are letting him get away with it.

What’s Wrong With 3.1%?

The Wisconsin unemployment figure is historic, but not the complete economic picture.

In May, the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development calculated the unemployment rate to be 3.1%. This is a percentage we haven’t seen since 1999, so naturally people with a stake in it are taking credit.

But what does it really mean for the economic and social success of our state?

Standard Caveats

Regardless of which direction they’re trending, or who’s attributing them to whom, bear in mind that unemployment numbers are calculated by polling. You only count as “unemployed” if you aren’t employed when they call, are available to be employed, and have trying to get employed. It doesn’t count those who work part time, seasonally, or have given up on the job market.

Just Following the Trend

Unemployment has been trending downward since the Great Recession, and Wisconsin has mostly just been paralleling that trend, consistently, about one percent below the national average. You could attribute that one percent however you want. Maybe it’s the role of agriculture in our economy. Regardless, it’s not new, and it’s not Governor Walker’s accomplishment.

Lagging in Population Growth

At an estimated growth rate of 1.61% over the past 6 years, Wisconsin is ranked 38th, and is far below the national average of 4.66%. The state’s birth rate is middling; the real cause here is emigration. Wisconsin was recently ranked the 7th in proportion of outbound moves to inbound.

A lot of the state is actually losing population, with Menominee and Dane counties as clear exceptions. We’re losing talent and tax revenue. When people move away, and we all know people who have, their knowledge and training goes with them.

Open Only For Big Business

Wisconsin has been on a streak of ranking dead last in startup activity according to the Kauffman Index, by a significant margin. This means we’re placing a disproportionate share of our economic eggs in a few baskets, relying on large companies for more of our job growth rather than building the economy from the ground up. We’re entirely too vulnerable to the next  Oscar Meyer pulling up stakes.

This is entirely in line with the Koch’s “jobs” strategy, as carried out in their legislature. The Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC) has been giving out large lump-sum grants with little accountability, and Wisconsin’s labor standards have become so lax that China’s disastrous Foxconn is looking at moving here. This dependence on large employers is bolstered by limited non-employer insurance options, right to work, and an active crusade against unions. Madison is the exception in this metric too, and Dane County overall has been leading the state in job growth.

Be Careful What You Wish For

A shortage of one thing can often be a surplus of another. A seller’s housing market and a low rental vacancy rate can be a housing shortage. Low unemployment can be a shortage of workforce, and an excess of unfilled positions, holding back our economic growth.

This isn’t to say that higher unemployment would be better for the state, just that it’s a situation that might not be great for service and retail jobs struggling to cover all their shifts, or for the hiring manager trying to replace someone about to retire.


In 2010, I scoffed at Scott Walker’s claim that you could “create jobs” just by changing the tax rate, or handing out grants to large companies. And I don’t believe it now either. Whether a company comes to our state or leaves it depends on much more than those two items on the balance sheet. It depends on whether there’s a plentiful labor pool to recruit from, what it’s like to live here, and how much it costs to do so.

It’s not all about attracting those “whales” either. The surest way to land the next Land’s End or Harley is to help businesses get started here.


Courtesy of  Nicholas Davies is a local member of, and regular contributor to, Indivisible Madison.

Why Go After Medicaid?

The House’s American Healthcare Act (AHCA), the Senate’s Better Healthcare Reconciliation Act (BHRA), and the first budget proposed by the White House include deep cuts to Medicaid. Trump’s budget called for spending reductions in the form of block grants or a per-capita spending limit. By underfunding the program in this way, the proposed budget forces states to reduce eligibility, reduce benefits, or cut payments to healthcare providers (or some combination of all three).

The AHCA and the BHRA take this same approach, also limiting federal responsibility for Medicaid via block grants or per-capita caps. In addition, both bills would roll back the Medicaid expansion provided by the ACA (Obamacare). According to the CBO, Medicaid will end up with about 800 billion less in federal funds spent over 10 years if the senate portion passes.

That’s three attacks on Medicaid in the space of a few months. Republicans in the House, the Senate, and now the White House have been talking about repealing and replacing Obamacare for a long time, but I see no reason why that effort must include major cuts to Medicaid. Why not focus on a bill centered around undoing the regulations of the ACA but leaving the Medicaid expansion alone? Why not take that, or any, path that doesn’t include crippling a program that provides tangible help for our most vulnerable? There are countless ways for the authors of these bills to declare some sort of victory, so why is Medicaid such a target?

The reason is that Medicaid shows a path towards a reasonable healthcare system for the United States. On June 20th, the Nevada state Legislature passed a measure that would have created a way for anyone in the state to buy into Nevada’s Medicaid system, even if they were otherwise ineligible. Here, in Wisconsin, State Representative Eric Genrich, (D-Green Bay), and State Senator LaTonya Johnson, (D-Milwaukee) introduced similar legislation that would allow anyone to buy in to BadgerCare, Wisconsin’s version of the Medicaid program. The Nevada bill was vetoed and the future of the Wisconsin bill remains to be seen. But both proposals demonstrate a very competitive alternative to private insurers. Medicaid enjoys a high degree of satisfaction among its recipients. On average, Americans report satisfaction with their care at rates comparable to or better than private insurance. And, even though Medicaid serves a portion of the population with typically high health care costs, the program keeps costs significantly lower than its private counterparts.

Giving the general public access to health care of that quality is likely to be disruptive to the current market. Even Americans that might be wary of more comprehensive changes to our healthcare system (like single-payer efforts spearheaded by California and New York) would be amenable to participating in an existing, but expanded, program. As more people join and have positive experiences, the people’s fears about publicly administered health care would start to fade. Private insurers would be forced to compete with the public option in both quality and cost. This is bad news for anyone seeking to uphold a status quo where private insurers rake in profits while Americans struggle to manage rising premiums.

What’s a politician in the pocket of the insurance lobby to do? Well, if the reality of Medicaid won’t conform to myths about socialized medicine, you could force it to do so with legislation. First, you’d want to constrain the program so it reached as few people as possible. In other words, you’d want to end the Medicaid expansion from the ACA, as the AHCA and BHRA do. Second, you’d want to reduce the amount a state could spend (either per person or in total) to force states to reduce the amount of citizens it serves, or reduce the amount of care those citizens get. In other words, you’d want to reduce overall spending on Medicaid compared to projections by introducing block grants or per capita limits, just as the AHCA, BHRA and the White House’s budget call for.

Medicaid is a target because it works too well. As the Nevada Legislature and Democratic leaders in the Wisconsin Legislature have already figured out, the next step to a better healthcare system is right in front of us. The architects of the Trump Budget, the AHCA, and the BHRA are putting up roadblocks to halt this progress. The Senate left the issue unresolved when they left for the July 4th recess. They’ll be back on the 10th. Call your senators. Let them know Americans want to expand a working program, not dismantle it.

RTT Update 06-27-2017

This week we met with Flora Csontos from Senator Baldwin’s office to discuss healthcare and funding for the 2020 census. We were joined by members of Indivisible Stoughton and had our largest group yet. Thanks to everyone who has shown up and helped keep us going!

Question: We have been working on coordinating with other Indivisible groups. One group that we have spoken with is Indivisible Hawaii and they had some concerns about the 2020 census that seem relevant since Senator Baldwin is on the Appropriations Committee for Labor. We would like to request that the 2020 census is adequately funded since this information helps us figure out how to allocate our resources and would help create fair voting districts.

Flora: It’s great that your groups are looking out this far!

Question: We had heard that the funding for the 2020 census might be decreased. Is this true?
Flora: I have not heard that, but I will check.
Question: We are against Trumpcare and would like to ask Senator Baldwin to continue opposing this legislation. What is the status of the Senate vote for this healthcare bill?

Flora: The Senate vote has been pushed to after the July 4th recess. This means that senators will have a chance to meet with their constituents over the break and hear their stories about the ACA. The CBO score came out yesterday and it is almost the same as the House version of the bill. People are spending more money for less care. Affordable healthcare is a personal issue for Senator Baldwin. As most of you know, she had a childhood illness and understands how difficult access to quality healthcare can be with a pre-existing condition. She’ll do everything she can.

Question: Will Senator Baldwin have any town halls over the 4th of July recess?

Flora: None are scheduled for July. We will possibly have some in August, but nothing concrete yet.

Question: Do Democrats have a plan of what they would like to do with healthcare? Resisting Trumpcare will only get us so far unless we have our own plan.

Flora: Several people have put forward plans to improve the ACA. While the ACA is good, there are things we can do to improve it. Earlier this month, Senator Baldwin introduced legislation that would help middle-class families receive financial assistance. We want to proactively improve the ACA. (The press release for this legislation is included at the bottom of this update).

Question: Senator Baldwin does not support school vouchers, but I am concerned because Governor Walker does. It doesn’t seem fair that money meant for public education is being funneled to private schools.

Flora: Out of all of Trump’s nominees, we received the most calls regarding Betsy DeVos. We will continue to push back against vouchers. We want everyone to have access to quality public education.

Question: Does Senator Baldwin have any plans to filibuster by amendment? Reconciliation would allow any number of amendments to be added to the AHCA, so it is possible for Senator Baldwin to do this in order to slow down the process. A national group is pushing for this and have created a website,, where people are submitting amendment ideas.

Flora: I will pass that along to the Senator.

ACA Improvement Press Release:…/aca-more-affordable

Medicaid Under Attack

The Affordable Care Act (ACA, or ObamaCare) significantly expanded Medicaid, ensuring that over 95% of children nationwide were covered by health insurance.  Pediatricians celebrated this occasion because it ensured that children would have easy access to their primary care providers, subspecialists, and therapists without forcing families to choose between medical care, food, and shelter. Unfortunately, this great achievement has not been celebrated by President Trump or Republicans in Congress, as evidenced by the American Health Care Act (AHCA, or TrumpCare) passed by the House of Representatives, the budget proposal submitted by President Trump’s administration, and the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA).

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) strongly opposed the AHCA and the BCRA.  Two of the most significant concerns voiced by the AAP regarding both bills is the harm to individuals with pre-existing conditions and the significant decrease in Medicaid spending that would lead to millions of Americans losing their health insurance. These concerns, unfortunately, were ignored.

Members of the AAP were vocal in opposing the AHCA, with significant concerns about how this would harm children and families. Despite AAP activity at the federal level we saw that this administration is declining to recognize the importance of children’s health insurance with the release of President Trump’s requested budget.  In this budget, we see large cuts to Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in addition to cuts suggested by the AHCA/BCRA.  In the year 2016, over 500,000 children used Medicaid or BadgerCare Plus (Wisconsin’s version of CHIP). Decreasing federal assistance and leaving Wisconsin to make up the remaining funds will force the state to decrease the amount of individuals able to receive Medicaid or BadgerCare, significantly increasing the uninsured and underinsured population.

As a neonatology fellow who takes care of many babies who require these insurances, I’m incredibly concerned about the possibility of families being uninsured or underinsured and trying to make ends meet.  Many of the infants who are discharged home from the NICU have follow-ups not only with their pediatrician, but other specialists and therapists. They have medications and follow-up imaging studies that all cost significant amounts of money.  This would harm the family unit if not covered by insurance.  

While there will be many changes to the budget prior to approval from both the House and the Senate, we need to remain vocal and require that our government put children first. With the many different controversies surrounding President Trump’s administration, it is important to continue to tell your Senators to oppose the Better Care Reconciliation Act.  We should also tell our elected representatives to support a federal budget that does not harm children and low-income families.

Featured image by Martin Falbisoner is licensed under CC BY SA 3.0