The declaration of Donald Trump as the next President of the United States in the wee hours of the morning on Wednesday, November 9, 2016 sent shockwaves across the nation, local communities and around the globe. Elected by razor thin margins in just three states, Trump has promised to rollback hard won gains for women, deport millions of undocumented immigrants, repeal the Affordable Care Act and appoint a conservative Supreme Court Justice that could overturn or threaten settled law.
As many struggle to grasp the potential impact of proposed Trump policies and cabinet appointments at the federal level on vulnerable communities, some cities and states have stepped up to offer sanctuary, protect low-income women and families, and to use their resources to push back against potential punitive or draconian policies.
To be sure, across all levels of government, Donald Trump’s proposed public policies pose significant threats to marginalized communities and families. The individuals that will be most affected by Trump policies are those that sit at the intersections of race, class, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity. On a range of policy issues from poverty to reproductive rights to Immigration and health care, Donald Trump has signaled that he plans to repeal or overturn life-saving legislation related to women’s health; devolve authority to states or localities; and impose harsh laws that could see millions separated from their families. Here’s where Trump stands on the issues that matter most to women, families and communities:
Reproductive Rights and Choice
“[In the Wake of Trump’s Election] the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health recommits to fight for health, dignity and justice for the 28 million Latinas and their families in the United States. Each one of us deserves the opportunity to shape our future, to live safe and healthy lives, and to be free to determine if, when, and how we form our families, without shame, stigma or punishment.”--Jessica Gonzales Rojas, Executive Director, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
With regard to access to the full range of reproductive health choices for women, Donald Trump has stated that he is fully committed to appointing a conservative Supreme Court Justice that would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. He also plans to institute a federal law that would ban abortion after 20 weeks and strip funding and support for Planned Parenthood. Across race, ethnicity or socio-economic status, all of these efforts would have a dramatic impact on women and families across the country.
In terms of offensive measures or repeals, such as those to repeal the Hyde Amendment, the legislation that bans the use of federal funds for abortion, they are likely to be stalled or non-starters for the new Administration.
In fact, global family planning advocates worry that Trump could re-instate the "Mexico City policy" or the global gag rule that would block funding for international family planning organizations unless they agree not to "promote" abortion or provide referrals to providers who perform it. The re-instatement of the ban is not far fetched. Since its passage in 1984, every time the U.S. presidency has changed party hands, the incoming leader has reversed his predecessor's position on the ban.
Next, less than two weeks after Trump’s election, the state of Texas approved two new rules that would require health care facilities to treat fetal remains, regardless of how long it has been gestating, like a deceased person, requiring a burial. Texas is not alone, both Indiana and Louisiana have approved similar measures that have not taken affect because of legal battles and challenges to the laws.
Over the next four years, states will continue to be the battleground for reproductive rights and freedom for women. With encouragement and support from the federal level, anti-choice advocates in red and blue states alike will work tirelessly to impose restrictive and dangerous laws that limit the rights of women to access the full range of reproductive health care options.
The Affordable Care Act & Medicaid
Through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), more than 20 million Americans have health insurance coverage. Since it was signed into law in 2010, rates for uninsured individuals have dropped significantly--25 percent for Latinos, and 50 percent for Blacks and Whites, respectively. In addition to requiring health care coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions, the Affordable Care Act has also provides low or no out-of-pocket costs for birth control or prenatal care for women. Despite the positive impact the Affordable Care Act has had on individuals and families, Trump, with the support of House and Senate Republicans, has vowed to repeal the legislation in his first 100 days in office.
Appealing the Affordable Care Act without a sure and viable replacement will have a long-term and devastating impact on low-income individuals and families across the nation. It will also cause undue financial strain and burden to states, cities and localities.
In addition to changes to the Affordable Care Act, Trump’s choice for the head of Health and Human Services, Tom Price indicates that there is also strong possibility that he will move to block grant Medicaid, leaving millions of individuals uninsured or under insured. If Medicaid is Block-granted, states will lose money and may be forced to cap enrollment, spend less on health care, or institute waitlists for those in need of coverage.
Immigration Reform
“New York will remain a “sanctuary city” for undocumented immigrants. The city will reject federal aid that comes with objectionable “strings attached,” such as requiring local cops to turn over people they learn are here illegally, an action that, as a sanctuary city, New York won’t allow.”--Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York City
Under Trump, the possibility of comprehensive immigration reform is nil. Predictably, there will be no legislation that will be passed under his leadership that will provide amnesty or a realized pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Instead, immigrant rights advocates at all levels of government will be forced to beat back proposed legislation and efforts to deport millions of undocumented immigrants or to erect a wall between the United States and Mexico.
Nationwide, there are 39 cities and 364 counties that purport to be sanctuary cities or localities. Since Trump’s election, cities such as Chicago and Washington, DC and states such as California and New York have continued to assert themselves as sanctuary cities and states. They have also begun to prepare for legal battles to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation.
The cost to enforce or deport undocumented immigrants under Donald Trump’s plan is astronomical and estimated to cost between $100 billion to $300 billion. Enforcement and deportation efforts would also swell ICE’s ranks to more than 90,000 — about three times the size of New York City’s police force. Connectedly, experts estimate the cost to build a wall between Mexico and the United States could cost upwards of $25 billion.
Due to the extensive cost, necessary human capital, and the resistance by some cities and localities to help enforce or deport, the probability of erecting the wall or mass deportation happening in four years is slim. However, the fear and harassment faced by immigrant communities in the wake of such dangerous proposals is real and life threatening.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that monitors hate crimes and groups, since Trump’s election, there have been nearly 900 hate and harassment crimes reported to authorities or organizations.
Poverty and the Social Safety Net
Donald Trump has no clear or viable plan to reduce poverty or expand the social safety net for families. In the absence of a clear plan, Trump will likely rely on anti-poverty plans floated by republicans over the last several years. Specifically, he might turn to Paul Ryan’s poverty proposal. Ryan’s plan will devastate families and hand over control of 11 key safety net programs including food stamps, housing assistance, childcare and Head Start to cash-strapped states. States with great need would be forced to cut programs and direct support to families, or impose stricter eligibility requirements.
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the most recent House budget gets 62 percent of its cuts from programs for low- and moderate-income people. That includes at least $150 billion in cuts to food stamps and nearly $500 billion in mostly unspecified cuts to other low-income programs like SSI (which provides cash to the disabled and elderly), Pell Grants, and what little remains of welfare. Cuts to food stamps alone would kick a combined 3 million people off the program, mostly childless adults, low-income seniors, and low-income families with high child care costs. In short, Paul Ryan’s poverty proposal would be a backdoor way of getting rid of the safety net once and for all.
Education Policy & Reform
Donald Trump’s proposed appointment of billionaire Betsy Devos, school voucher proponent, as Education Secretary could have severe consequences for the already fragile public school system and accelerate the privatization of public schools across the country.
Many Republicans, including Trump want to shrink the Education Department’s role in public schools and leave more decisions to states and districts. To this end, Donald Trump has proposed funneling $20 billion to states in block grants to support school choice and voucher programs. For cities such as Detroit and New Orleans with struggling public school systems, school choice and voucher programs have proven to be ineffective and deepen the gap in educational quality and achievement.
Under Donald Trump, there is much work to be done at the federal, state and local levels to ensure that the gains made under President Barack Obama are not unraveled or long ago wins reversed. As we move forward and until we can begin to understand more clearly what policies will be proposed at the federal level, we can and should focus our attention at the state, city and local levels where our efforts will have a direct impact on girls, women and low-income families in our communities.
**A version of this article appears in the New York Women’s Foundation’s Winter Edition of the Activist Philanthropist