Charity and Health: This Week in the Trump Administration

After spending a semester in my nonprofits class learning all about charitable organizations’ tax codes, it was so great to read that Trump undid all of it this weekend with an executive order that now allows 501(c)(3)s to endorse political candidates.

The Johnson Amendment was signed by President Johnson as a measure to further separate church and state by not allowing tax-exempt organizations to endorse political candidates. If not followed, the IRS has the ability to strip 501(c)(3) organizations of their government funding or their tax-exempt status. Trump mentioned at the prayer breakfast a couple months ago that he wanted to repeal the Johnson Amendment (to lots of cheers) because many conservatives agree the amendment is “government overreach.”

71% of Americans say, however, that the Johnson Amendment is not government overreach, but a preventive measure for churches and other nonprofits to not become a tool of political parties. It’s about keeping the government out.

So because the Johnson Amendment is hidden under layers of tax code, it’s almost impossible for Trump to repeal it. Instead, he signed an executive order that basically tells the IRS they don’t have to enforce these Substantial tests or Expenditure tests for charitable organizations. Of course, many churches and other nonprofits have the ability to still not endorse a candidate or speak negatively about another, but it sure makes it acceptable for them to do so.

One of many critiques about charitable organizations in general is that philanthropic donations don’t always go directly back into the organization (that’s a discussion for another day), but you can bet that this executive order will allow churches to use your tithe for a candidate’s campaign or Super PAC (whether you like it or not) instead of for their own mission. Churches (and many other charitable organizations) shouldn’t become more partisan than they already are–like we need more of that in our lives.

Now, onto the healthcare bill. Another fun topic!

Since coming to college, I’ve been both terrified of and passionate about stopping campus sexual assault. It became more realistic a couple years ago when I first watched the documentary The Hunting Ground (which everyone should watch, regardless of age) about sexual assault on campus and the lengths universities go to cover it up or brush it under the rug.

I saw VP Joe Biden speak last year about his “It’s On Us” campaign, which takes action against campus sexual assault by preventing the bystander effect. There is a lot we can do to help each other out, such as intervening when we see inappropriate behavior or someone in danger, and not resorting to victim-blaming.  

I also joined a club last year called Advocates for Women of the World where we create awareness campaigns about topics such as human trafficking, reproductive rights, and sexual assault. Last fall we partnered with many sororities and fraternities on campus for a “banner up” campaign. Each chapter would hang a large banner from their house with phrases such as “These Hands Don’t Hurt,” “Yes Means Yes,” and “We Support Survivors of Sexual Assault” in order to combat rape culture on campus.

What does this have to do with the American Health Care Act? It’s hard enough for survivors of sexual assault to cope emotionally and physically with the trauma, let alone potentially be blamed for the assault, let alone deal with legal issues of facing their attacker, let alone be ignored by their university…and now, have their access to healthcare risked because their assault is a “pre-existing condition.” 

“Pre-existing condition” is a nice buzzword that’s been floating around a lot this week. While many of these concerns might be slightly exaggerated since insurers still can’t deny people coverage altogether, the Republican plan would allow state-level programs to have thinner protections for individual market coverage.

The MacArthur-Meadows Amendment allows states to apply for a waiver to raise premiums based on medical history, hence the concern that rape survivors will have the potential of higher premiums because of the risks associated with violence. States can also seek waivers for the requirements of other “essential health benefits” such as maternity, c-sections, domestic violence, and age. A president who says he grabs women by the pussy makes me want to throw up as it is, but condoning a healthcare bill that makes it harder for survivors to get the help they need turns cultural violence into structural violence. 

Many Republicans, including Ohio Governor John Kasich, have spoken out against the AHCA because of these potential difficulties for people with serious medical conditions to buy insurance.

“You want to give people a chance to rise,” Kasich said on Real Time with Bill Maher this week, “and if they have bad health, they can’t get work, they can’t get anything . . . I’ve been very forceful on this healthcare bill and I’ve spoken out against it . . . [but] the problem is that there’s not the resources in this bill to help people on the exchange. Some people would get no more than a three or four thousand dollar tax credit. What can you buy for [that]?”

He continues, “If I say people need to have coverage, somehow that makes me something other than acceptable to conservatives? There would be no excuse I can think of in America that somebody who has a pre-existing condition has to ever worry about getting health care. That would be outrageous.”

Luckily, over 45 states already have provisions that prevent survivors of sexual assault from being discriminated against in healthcare. However, survivors are prone to mental health conditions, emergency medical treatment, and physical and psychological symptoms that can last for years after the assault.

Many survivors have difficulty coming forward about their sexual assault, and the risk of having to pay more for health insurance because of it, no matter how unlikely, becomes just another obstacle to that fear.

I oppose the AHCA because it is becoming increasingly clear that the supporters of this bill care less for healthcare as a right than they do for it as a product. Although the concern of sexual assault as a pre-existing condition is not explicitly stated in the AHCA, people are scared of that potential under state jurisdiction. Fear can move people more than actual policy, on both sides of the aisle, and that can be dangerous.

For me and many of my friends and classmates at college, we believed the direction our country was going under the Obama administration was a positive one. My roommate Rachel majors in Natural Resource Management because we grew up in a short era that favored clean energy to save the planet. My other roommate Lauren majors in Public Health because healthcare for all has been emphasized for half of our lives, and that’s not something we’re going to give up on.

I major in English with minors in Nonprofit Management and International Diplomacy because I want to use my storytelling skills in the humanitarian public affairs sector. Maybe we’re too optimistic. But a world that goes backward to favor greenhouse gasses and coal, healthcare for the wealthy, and church encroachment on the government is not a world in which we, and many other millennials, want to live.

It’s difficult to be at an age where I’m about to enter the workforce, but the future of my access to healthcare, insurmountable debt, job prospects, and the condition of my planet are unstable. After Trump won the presidency, my grandparents told me that even though it may feel awful now, things don’t really change that much from term to term. Why does this feel so different, then?