logo
Colorado Congresswoman Brittany Pettersen says treatment for substance use disorders would take a big hit under Republican budget bill

Colorado Congresswoman Brittany Pettersen says treatment for substance use disorders would take a big hit under Republican budget bill

CBS News21-05-2025
Treatment for substance use disorders would take hit under budget bill, Colorado Congresswoman says
Treatment for substance use disorders would take hit under budget bill, Colorado Congresswoman says
Treatment for substance use disorders would take hit under budget bill, Colorado Congresswoman says
For Rep. Brittany Pettersen, the debate happening in D.C. over Medicaid isn't political, it's personal. If not for the government health care program, she says, her mom wouldn't be alive. Stacy Pettersen struggled with opioid addition for years, a struggle that became the catalyst for far-reaching legislation by her daughter, including a law that expanded Medicaid to cover in-patient treatment for substance use disorders.
Rep. Brittany Pettersen
CBS
Pettersen says the law has saved lives and money.
"When you're denying them care and churning in and out ER, the federal and state government spent over a million keeping her alive in ICU instead of giving her access to the care she needed," Pettersen said.
Pettersen, the Democrat who represents Colorado's 7th Congressional District, was working on the bill with stakeholders, including Emergency Room Doctor Don Stader, when her mom overdosed and ended up in the ER.
Stader was on duty that night.
"It was one of the most surreal moments and patients of my life and it made ... (it) so clear what we are fighting for and what the stakes are," he said.
With Stader's help, Pettersen has passed a number of transformative laws to help those like her mom, who is now 8 years in recovery. But she says the Republican budget bill puts all that progress at risk.
"My mom is an example of what's possible when we give people the help they need," she said. "All of this is going away with this bill."
The bill strips Medicaid funding for in-patient addiction treatment, repeals a law providing Naloxone for rural first responders, creates new work and cost-sharing requirements for recipients, and implements twice yearly eligibility reviews.
"It's created to purge people off of actually qualifying for these benefits while paying tens of millions of dollars by increasing bureaucracy," said Pettersen.
The Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, which administers Medicaid, estimated the administrative burden alone would cost up to $57 million. The Congressional Budget Office says more than 100,000 Coloradans could lose their coverage.
"This is going to fundamentally shift health care in many communities across the country," said Stader. "We are going to take our health care back a quantum leap for something that is far less effective, far less compassionate and far less efficient than what we have now."
Last year, Colorado saw a 35% reduction in opioid deaths. Pettersen worries the downward trend will reverse course.
"We had the biggest reduction of overdose deaths, and it's because of this work. It's because of access to Naloxone. It's because of increasing access to treatment. And they're actually taking that option away for states like Colorado," Pettersen said.
President Trump wants the House to pass the bill by Memorial Day. He met with GOP hardliners Tuesday. They are refusing to pass the measure without deeper cuts. The bill would cut taxes by $4 trillion and reduce federal spending by $1.6 trillion, including a $700 billion reduction in Medicaid spending. It is expected to raise the national debt by about $3 trillion over the next 10 years.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The American Fighting to Pry His Company Back From the Kremlin's Grasp
The American Fighting to Pry His Company Back From the Kremlin's Grasp

Wall Street Journal

time15 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

The American Fighting to Pry His Company Back From the Kremlin's Grasp

American businessman Leonid Smirnov first got the feeling that something was off when local Russian newspapers began airing rumors that the government was looking at taking over his company, the biggest producer of canned goods in the country. It was only when he received a phone call from an employee at 3:30 a.m. at his Los Angeles residence last October that he found out for sure that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered the nationalization of Glavprodukt. His was the first U.S.-owned company to fall victim to what is now a mounting wave of Kremlin business seizures.

Newsom calls Trump's $1 billion UCLA settlement offer extortion, says California won't bow
Newsom calls Trump's $1 billion UCLA settlement offer extortion, says California won't bow

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Newsom calls Trump's $1 billion UCLA settlement offer extortion, says California won't bow

By Kanishka Singh WASHINGTON (Reuters) -California Governor Gavin Newsom said on Saturday that a $1 billion settlement offer by President Donald Trump's administration for UCLA amounted to political extortion to which the state will not bow. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT The University of California says it is reviewing a $1 billion settlement offer by the Trump administration for UCLA after the government froze hundreds of millions of dollars in funding over pro-Palestinian protests. UCLA, which is part of the University of California system, said this week the government froze $584 million in funding. Trump has threatened to cut federal funds for universities over pro-Palestinian student protests against U.S. ally Israel's military assault on Gaza. KEY QUOTES "Donald Trump has weaponized the DOJ (Department of Justice) to kneecap America's #1 public university system — freezing medical & science funding until @UCLA pays his $1 billion ransom," the office of Newsom, a Democrat, said in a post. "California won't bow to Trump's disgusting political extortion," it added. "This isn't about protecting Jewish students - it's a billion-dollar political shakedown from the pay-to-play president." CONTEXT The government alleges universities, including UCLA, allowed antisemitism during the protests and in doing so violated Jewish and Israeli students' civil rights. The White House had no immediate comment beyond the offer. Protesters, including some Jewish groups, say the government wrongly equates their criticism of Israel's war in Gaza and its occupation of Palestinian territories with antisemitism, and their advocacy for Palestinian rights with support for extremism. Experts have raised free speech and academic freedom concerns over the Republican president's threats. The University of California says paying such a large settlement would "completely devastate" the institution. UCLA PROTESTS AND ENVIRONMENT Large demonstrations took place at UCLA last year. Last week, UCLA agreed to pay over $6 million to settle a lawsuit by some students and a professor who alleged antisemitism. It was also sued this year over a 2024 violent mob attack on pro-Palestinian protesters. Rights advocates have noted a rise in antisemitism, anti-Arab bias and Islamophobia due to conflict in the Middle East. The Trump administration has not announced equivalent probes into Islamophobia. RECENT SETTLEMENTS The government has settled its probes with Columbia University, which agreed to pay over $220 million, and Brown University, which said it will pay $50 million. Both accepted certain government demands. Settlement talks with Harvard University are ongoing.

The legal battle over Trump's use of the National Guard moves to a California courtroom
The legal battle over Trump's use of the National Guard moves to a California courtroom

CNN

timean hour ago

  • CNN

The legal battle over Trump's use of the National Guard moves to a California courtroom

Lawyers for President Donald Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are set to face off Monday to determine whether the president violated a 147-year-old law when he deployed the National Guard to quell protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles – against the wishes of the Democratic governor. In June, as hundreds of people gathered in Los Angeles to protest a string of immigration raids that targeted workplaces and left dozens of people detained or deported, the president federalized and deployed 4,000 National Guard members over the objection of Newsom and local officials, who said the deployment would only cause further chaos. Trump invoked a rarely used law that allows the president to federalize the National Guard during times of actual or threatened rebellion or invasion, or when regular forces can't enforce US laws. The president's lawyers said in a court filing that the duties of the National Guard troops and a handful of Marines also dispatched were narrowly circumscribed: They were dispatched only to protect federal property and personnel, and they didn't engage in any law enforcement activities. Newsom filed a lawsuit June 9 against Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, saying they violated the Posse Comitatus Act and the 10th Amendment. Trump's lawyers say the act, which prevents the use of the military for enforcing laws, doesn't provide a mechanism for a civil lawsuit. But Newsom's lawyers have argued the president illegally made an 'unprecedented power grab' – and even violated the Constitution – by overruling local authorities to send in the military. The president and Hegseth 'have overstepped the bounds of law and are intent on going as far as they can to use the military in unprecedented, unlawful ways,' Newsom's lawyers say in a complaint. The trial represents a crucial moment for determining how much power a US president can lawfully exercise over the military on domestic soil. During his first term, Trump had often speculated openly about the possibility of deploying the military on American soil, whether to suppress protests or combat crime. Now he's talking about deploying the National Guard to the nation's capital over recent high-profile crimes. The trial also represents an escalation of the feud between Trump and Newsom, which saw the president threaten to have the Democratic governor arrested during the Los Angeles protests. Newsom described the comment as 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' The judge set to preside over the bench trial, Charles R. Breyer, previously granted a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration, ruling that the president unlawfully federalized the National Guard and that the protests didn't amount to an insurrection. But just hours later, an appeals court paused his ruling, allowing the deployment to continue. Here's more on what to know about the upcoming trial – and the three laws Newsom's team says Trump and Hegseth violated. The trial is taking place in San Francisco, presided over by Breyer, who sits on the US District Court for the Northern District of California, with proceedings scheduled from Monday to Wednesday. At the center of the legal proceedings is the Posse Comitatus Act, which largely prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, an independent law and policy organization. 'Posse Comitatus' is a Latin term used in American and British law to describe 'a group of people who are mobilized by the sheriff to suppress lawlessness in the county,' according to the Brennan Center. The act, signed into law by President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1878, consists of just one sentence: 'Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.' Newsom's lawyers say the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles was a violation of the act since it bars 'the military from engaging in civil law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by law,' according to the complaint. But Trump's lawyers insist the National Guard and Marines didn't engage in any civil law enforcement – and therefore didn't violate the act. Moreover, they say the act itself doesn't provide any mechanisms for its enforcement in a private civil lawsuit. Newsom's lawyers also argue that by overriding California officials, Trump violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which governs the sharing of power between the federal government and the 50 states. The amendment says 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Trump and Hegseth's move to call up the National Guard against the governor's wishes 'infringes on Governor Newsom's role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the State's sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power,' Newsom's complaint says. Policing and crime control are some of the most crucial uses of state power, Newsom's lawyers say. Additionally, Newsom's lawyers argue Trump and Hegseth violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a court must 'hold unlawful and set aside agency action' that is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law,' that is 'contrary to constitutional right (or) power,' or that is 'in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.' Hegseth and the Department of Defense 'lack authority to federalize members of the California National Guard without issuing such orders through Governor Newsom, who has not consented to their actions or been afforded the opportunity to consult on any deployment. Such agency actions are unauthorized, unprecedented, and not entitled to deference by this Court,' reads the complaint. Trump's lawyers, meanwhile, have focused in their filing on a little-used law they cited to federalize the National Guard. Section 12406(3) of the US Code says the president can federalize the National Guard of any state in three circumstances: if the US is being invaded or faces danger of invasion; if there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion; or if the president is unable 'with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' The law, however, stipulates the orders should be issued 'through the governors.' Newsom's lawyers say Trump didn't consult with the governor before issuing the order. Breyer previously pointed out Trump's memo directed Hegseth to consult the governor before federalizing the National Guard – but that he didn't. The Los Angeles deployment was only the second time in US history that a president has used the 'exclusive authority' of this law to federalize the National Guard, according to Newsom's lawyers. The first was when President Richard Nixon called on the National Guard to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service strike. And it's the second time since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators, that a president activated a state's national guard without a request from the governor – though he used a different law to do so. Trump's lawyers say the president was unable to enforce federal immigration law 'as well as laws forbidding interference with federal functions or assaults on federal officers and property' with 'the regular forces' – so the deployment falls within the limits of Section 12406(3). With only 300 National Guard troops still deployed in Los Angeles, Newsom's lawyers are looking mostly for symbolic relief: a declaration the memorandum used to federalize the National Guard and Hegseth's orders were unauthorized and illegal. The remaining troops are stationed at Joint Forces Training Base – Los Alamitos, Newsom says, 'without a clear mission, direction, or a timeline for returning to their communities.' Newsom's team is also asking for 'injunctive relief' prohibiting Hegseth and the Department of Defense from federalizing and deploying the California National Guard and military without meeting legal requirements, including the cooperation of the governor. Finally, they ask to recoup the state of California's costs and attorneys' fees and 'such additional relief as the court deems proper and the interests of justice may require.' Trump's lawyers indicated in a court filing they plan to call as a witness Maj. Gen. Scott M. Sherman, deputy commanding general of the National Guard. Sherman is expected to discuss the National Guard's deployment to Los Angeles and their compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act. Newsom's lawyers also plan to call Sherman, as well as US Army official William B. Harrington to testify about the activities of Task Force 51, the command post activated to coordinate deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is also expected to testify about the federalized National Guard's activities in support of federal law enforcement officials during immigration enforcement operations.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store