SANTA FE, N.M. - A rally held this week in the state Capitol Rotunda has brought new attention to the needs of New Mexico residents who have been exposed to health hazards from uranium mining and nuclear testing in past decades.

New Mexico lawmakers are being asked to support amendments to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) to provide benefits to people whose exposure occurred after 1971.

Linda Evers of the Post-'71 Uranium Workers Committee attended the rally. Evers was employed at the Jackpile Uranium Mine in 1976, and said she has two children with birth defects and her own health struggles as a result.

"There's five of the respiratory illnesses that are directly correlated with the scarring of the lungs," she said, "and that's part of the problem with the down-winders down there, is that these mutated, messed-up genetic sequences are starting to pass down now to third and fourth generations."

The federal government stopped being the sole extractor of radioactive materials in 1971, allowing businesses to enter the industry. Senate Memorial 85, House Memorial 40 and Senate Bill 197 all are intended to send a message to Washington that New Mexico supports expanding RECA benefits to people affected after 1971.

Federal studies in the 1970s determined that nuclear sites that had been under government contract no longer posed health threats. However, new research by Dr. Akshay Sood at the University of New Mexico showed health conditions from radiation exposure "are not significantly different," before and after 1971. Evers said this modern medical research is key.

"All we're asking for is to be included in the current RECA program," she said. "We would like to see them expand the 'compensatable' diseases. The OSHA, the CDC and the EPA recognize 25 radiation-caused illnesses. The RECA program only compensates for five lung diseases and three kidney diseases."

Navajo Nation president Russell Begaye joined activists and state lawmakers for the rally in Santa Fe.


get more stories like this via email

California is poised to become the first state in the nation to give health care to all income-eligible residents, regardless of their immigration status.

The Legislature is set to pass the final budget bills this week, which will be signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom shortly thereafter.

Cynthia Buiza, executive director of the California Immigrant Policy Center, said it is the fulfillment of an almost decadelong push by the Health4All campaign.

"This is very timely, but also long overdue," Buiza asserted. "Because for many, many years, many of our immigrant workers who have contributed tremendously to what makes California, California, have gone on without this very important safety net."

The budget deal represents a huge step toward universal health coverage and is expected to benefit about 700,000 people, starting in 2024. Opponents cite the cost: The budget includes $625 million to cover the first six months of 2024, and then allocates $2.1 billion per year.

Beatriz Hernandez, Central Valley organizer for the California Immigrant Policy Center, said it will make a huge difference in people's quality of life.

"This means that they will finally be able to get the health care that they need to care for the chronic illnesses that they've been suffering for many years," Hernandez pointed out. "And also be able to get the checkups that they need."

The deal marks the final push to expand Medi-Cal to all low-income Californians. In 2015, the state expanded Medi-Cal to include undocumented children. In 2020 the program grew to include young adults, up to 26 years old. And this year the program began to accept undocumented adults, age 50 and older.

The ruling on abortion by the U.S. Supreme Court has returned the issue to the states, fulfilling long-held goals of Republican lawmakers in Texas to ban and criminalize abortion.

With the 49-year-old Row v. Wade case overturned, a trigger law takes effect next month, banning abortions from the moment of fertilization - there is no exception for rape or incest.

Texas lawmakers were ahead of the high court, passing legislation last fall to prohibit abortions after six weeks. Aimee Arrambide, executive director of the Texas chapter of the abortion rights group Avow, said she expects half the states to follow Texas' lead.

"We've been ringing the alarm that what is happening in Texas, doesn't stay in Texas," said Arrambide. "And that the public health crisis Texans have been facing for nearly 10 months will be the reality in half the country. Our opponents are not going to stop until abortion is completely inaccessible in the country."

In his concurring opinion with the 6-3 vote, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said high court rulings that established a right to contraception, as well as gay rights should also be reconsidered.

Following the ruling, Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott said abolishing Roe v. Wade, "reinstated the right of states to protect innocent, unborn children."

New Mexico is now the closest state for many Texans seeking an abortion, but getting there may not be possible for low-income people who don't have the time, money or child care to travel out of state. Progress Texas Advocacy Director Diana Gomez said education is the next step.

"There are a lot of folks who don't know about the existence of abortion funds," said Gomez, "of infrastructures that are already in place to help people get abortions, and so we want to let people know about clinics in surrounding states."

In addition to Texas, 25 other states are expected to make abortion illegal, affecting the lives of 36 million people. University of Texas at Austin Associate Professor Kari White said entire regions of the country may soon be in the business of extreme criminalization.

"In a state like Texas," said White, "it's also going to criminalize a whole range of behaviors and practices for people who are trying to help someone get an abortion."

Prior to the court's ruling, a poll by Reuters showed about 71% of Americans - including majorities of Democrats and Republicans - believed pregnancy termination should be a patient-doctor decision.

Medical negligence cases in Washington and elsewhere have taken on a new shape during the pandemic, as hospital resources have been strained and the potential usefulness of certain treatments has ebbed and flowed.

Drugs like ivermectin, for instance, were touted online as a potential COVID-19 treatment but ultimately lacked scientific evidence to back up those claims.

Elizabeth Calora is a Tacoma lawyer who specializes in medical negligence cases. She said there are some legal requirements for determining if a health professional acted carelessly which have been affected by COVID.

"We need to figure out what a reasonably prudent provider should have been doing in that context," said Calora, "and it usually means talking to experts in the field and then determining if what the provider did in the moment or over the course of several visits violated that standard of care."

Calora said after that, the person has to prove that the breach is what caused the damages.

The Washington state Legislature modified evaluations of negligence cases in 2021 so that resources and staffing must be taken into account. For instance, hospitals have often lacked beds at the height of different COVID waves, a factor outside of doctors' or facilities' control.

Calora said the standard of care evolves over time. What was once an acceptable medical practice in the 1970s, for example, might not be anymore.

"But usually it happens in a much slower timeframe than what we experienced at the start of the pandemic," said Calora. "With COVID, you had physicians all over the world basically - it makes me think of throwing spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks. Everyone was trying everything they could."

Calora said the unforeseen nature of the pandemic has made it hard to bring medical negligence cases forward. However, she added that shouldn't discourage people from speaking with an attorney if they feel they or a loved one has been wronged.

"Even though things were bad," said Calora, "it doesn't give people license to practice beneath the standard of care."