Colton Quist

Between 1970 and 2009, there were several nuclear accidents or disasters resulting in approximately 5,000 deaths worldwide [1]. Many of these deaths were the result of cancers caused by radiation exposure. The photos and stories of resultant deformity and illness are painful. These victims are owed recognition and respect. Unrecognized, however, are the estimated 1.8 million people whose lives have been saved due to the production of nuclear energy [1]. While unnoticed, these individuals live all around the globe. It is very possible that one of these people is someone you know—a person who would have died as a result of increased air pollutants in the absence of nuclear power. If society is serious about providing a safe, reliable energy source to combat climate change, nuclear energy must be part of the solution.

Recently, some have questioned if the LGBT+ moment is over. For a few years, it seemed like LGBT+ rights were the hot button issue. Then, in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Obergefell decision, legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, and President Barack Obama lit the White House in rainbow to celebrate. Since then, the issue seems to have diminished in prominence. In the 2019 Democratic presidential primaries LGBT+ issues have been notably absent from the debate stages, and yes, you read that correctly, the Democratic primaries. Instead they were relegated to a town hall-style event for which only nine of the candidates appeared. [1][2] Startlingly, in June of this year, The Atlantic published a prominent piece entitled, “The Struggle for Gay Rights is Over.” [3] All of these signs are a manifestation of the rising suspicion that LGBT+ Americans have attained their goals. After all, what is left to accomplish? While tempting, and perhaps even appealing to some, this idea is dangerous. There is a lot left to be reformed both culturally and legally before LGBT+ individuals are treated as equal citizens.

During the past five months, two US Supreme Court justices, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, have raised the alarm that this Court (with new justices Niel Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh) appears to be more willing to overturn existing precedent [1]. These warnings lobbed by two traditionally left-leaning justices at their conservative-leaning colleauges have echoed across liberal American politics and media, with major issues such as LGBT+ rights and abortion likely to make their way to the Court in the near future. With these concerns about overturning precedent and fancy terms like stare decisis being thrown around, it is worth asking, “What is the value of precedent?”, and “What leads some justices to care more about it than others?”

On March 6, the Associated Press reported that the Utah State Legislature failed to pass a bill which would have barred therapists from practicing conversion therapy on minors [1]. “Conversion therapy” is the practice of attempting to alter someone’s sexual orientation using psychology. The practice has been largely discredited and has been rejected as ineffective and unsafe by both the American Medical Association [2] and the American Psychological Association [3]. The bill’s progress collapsed when Representative Lisonbee added amendments that would have weakened the law to the point of being unproductive. Conversion therapy on minors will continue in Utah, as will a trend of LGBT+ youth developing low self-esteem and psychological trauma as a result [4]. This failure of the Utah State Legislature is harmful to the LGBT+ population, but, despite some recent improvement, it is not the only problem that needs to be resolved with the state’s treatment of its LGBT+ community.

Abortion and reproductive rights are sensitive topics. Over the course of the last several decades, the issue has been among the most controversial in American politics and has demonstrated significant staying power unmatched by most other political issues. I do not write this to rile up the pro-life masses; rather I wish to reach those who may have more pro-choice sympathies. I will share some things that I wish more pro-choice people knew about the pro-life movement as well as try to explain why the issue is so important to those of us with whom the movement resonates. Most people reside somewhere in the middle of the spectrum on this issue and, while I am personally uncomfortable with pro-life and pro-choice labels and the divisions they manufacture, I will use them here for sake of ease.

In his final address to the nation, George Washington delivered these important words: “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion” [1]. Sound familiar to anyone?