A Reasonable and Economically Feasible Response to Lead in our Drinking Water

At first it was a public health issue that dominated the morning headlines--lead was found in the municipal water supply of Flint, Michigan; then, when a similar crisis struck Northeast Ohio in areas like Youngstown, the initial import and panic began to fade. All of  the affected regions, thus far, are burned-out urban centers, with majority African American populations, and unemployment rates that hover around 50 percent; they have nothing glamorous with which to attract the sustained attention of the national media. The Dems did address the issue-- Bernie called for resignations and accountability; while Hillary chastised power structures and acted sufficiently appalled to appease corporate campaign contributors as well as her more grassroots supporters. Republicans acted collectively underwhelmed as they had hand size and grip strength over which to joust. Furthermore, Governor Snyder of Michigan and Governor Kasich of Ohio are both Republicans which apparently prevents any of the GOP candidates from looking too closely at this current public health crisis.
The Feds have promised and recently apportioned considerable funds to Flint in an effort to fix the long-standing issues of infrastructure that, in large part, precipitated the contamination of city drinking water. The residents of Flint and Youngstown and all the other as of yet undiscovered affected Rust Belt communities continue to rely on donated bottled water and will do so for the foreseeable future.
Please consider the following facts provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency: Every year in the US there are 560,000 newly diagnosed cases of childhood learning disorders which can be directly linked to elevated lead in drinking water.
Every year in the US there are 680,000 new cases of adult hypertension which can be directly linked to elevated lead levels in drinking water. Amongst adult males in the US, there are also 650 strokes, 880 MI's (heart attacks) and 670 premature deaths which can be directly linked to elevated lead levels in drinking water.
The EPA also recognizes the relationship between exposure to lead and adolescent crime. According to the Agency's data and several studies cited therein, urban centers with elevated lead levels in their municipal water supply, also experience and have recorded comparatively higher rates of adolescent crime/violence and drug abuse.
It will take years to solve infrastructure shortcomings and make the necessary substitutions and reformulations within the Nation's urban water supply systems to eliminate lead leaching from pipes, etcetera. An immediate fix must be made available to those Americans who reside within our urban centers like Flint and Youngstown, to afford protection from lead contamination to their infants and children. Access to clean water is a basic human right. Too many of our friends and neighbors are, at present, being denied this fundamental human right. This situation must change and it can change. An immediate fix could be this simple:
Every household within affected zip codes and/or every household to which WIC (Women, Infants, Children) benefits are assigned can be given a voucher each month which would allow them to purchase at least one faucet filter, i.e. Brita, Zero, Pur, Seychelle, Mavea. These filters remove lead
and a number of other toxic substances including some pharmaceuticals from the water that runs through the faucet to which it is attached. By using a faucet filter, WIC mothers would be able to reconstitute infant formula, wash dishes, clean fruits and vegetables and provide cleaner, safer drinking water to their families. Gone is their reliance on bottled water--which, incidentally, is not covered by WIC benefits.
The Child Nutrition Act of 1966, which defines the parameters of WIC and related programs, would allow for such inclusion of faucet filters under Section 17 [42 USC 1786] (a) Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, which reads, in part: ...It is therefore, the purpose of this program...to provide...supplemental foods and nutrition education. The program shall serve as an adjunct to good health care, during critical times of growth and development, to prevent the occurrence of health problems and improve the health status of these persons. Removing lead contaminants from a family's drinking water will only help to improve the growth and development of its infants and children. A simple, inexpensive faucet filter, (most are available for less than $15), can help protect at-risk families and their children. Congress could make this happen. We should demand that it does happen. Their constituents, our friends and neighbors, deserve access to clean water. It truly is this simple.

Please reference: fns.usda.gov, cbsnews.com, wkbn.com, Cleveland.com, Youngstown.oh.networkofcare.org

Women's Health in the 2016 Election Cycle

On the eve of Super Tuesday many voters (including this one) are left wondering "What happened to public health issues?" "What about women's health?" "When are Dems going to set the agenda for the national conversation, rather than just react to the Conservative front runners?"
This election cycle public health issues, particularly those directly related to women's health, have been comfortably relegated to the purview of Democrats. And when left to the Dems, the focus on public health sharpened momentarily with citations of Planned Parenthood defunding and lead in the drinking water, but that was a transient interest, at best. Soon after a cursory mention in debate or town hall meeting the focus became fuzzy again, and the issue of public health was essentially deprioritized. The Dems continue to allow the Republican presidential candidates to inject inaccuracies into the national conversation with little if any contradiction or counterpoint. For example, Planned Parenthood and its network of clinics across the Nation have been consistently and vehemently demonized by Conservatives--the sole focus of such comments is abortion. Irrespective of one's view on abortion, Planned Parenthood clinics offer low-cost, affordable health care to women and their families; such services include vaccinations for both flu and tetanus, anemia screening, diabetes screening, cholesterol screening, employment and sports physicals, smoking cessation services, hypertension screening, thyroid screening--all of this in addition to well woman exams, health exams for men, HIV testing, STD/STI testing, and distribution of birth control. Does it make a lot of sense to defund or restrict funding to such an organization that provides so many fundamental, basic medical services when so many areas of the country are in the throes of a primary care shortage, i.e. inner city and rural towns? Furthermore, Planned Parenthood has an income-based fee schedule and does accept Medicaid. Too many primary care providers are limiting the number of Medicaid patients that their practices will see, if they are willing to see any at all. Why or better yet how has it become acceptable to remove from at-risk communities, the one provider who will see and treat everyone? It would be a wonderful thing to have the Democratic nominee pose such questions to the nominated Republican during the general election debates. Who amongst us, however, believes it will happen?
 Going still further--the realignment of states' WIC reimbursements hasn't made the list of election issues, neither has the need to fully revamp food sources that supply the National School Lunch Program. In addition, neither side of the aisle is addressing ground water contamination with atrazine and glyphosate--two lawn chemicals and known human carcinogens which are readily available in any home improvement store.
As the election cycle progresses the bipartisan marginalization of public health and women's health issues must stop; these areas of concern deserve advancement to the fore of our national conversation.