News
Why Our Next Governor is Most Likely Already Decided
Nathan Moldover
The Massachusetts gubernatorial election is occurring on November 8, 2022, but the real date that will decide Massachusetts’s next governor is the sixth of September, the day of the primary. That race, however, seems to have already been won.
Charlie Baker, the moderate Republican governor of Massachusetts, a deep blue state, assumed office in January of 2015. Even though he is a Republican in Massachusetts, he has the highest gubernatorial approval rating in the country: 74%, according to a Morning Consult poll from April 28th, 2022. Massachusetts has no gubernatorial term limit, so he could’ve decided to run for re-election. However, neither Charlie Baker nor his Lieutenant Governor, Karyn Polito, are running again. Biden carried Massachusetts with over 65% of the vote in 2020, so without a popular Republican incumbent, the door is wide open for Democrats.
The Democratic Primary is thus the de facto election. There are two prominent candidates. The first of these is Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who was elected first in 2014, then again in 2018. Upon her election, she became the first openly gay state attorney general in the country. The other major candidate is Massachusetts State Senator Sonia Chang-Díaz, who was the first Hispanic woman elected to the state Senate. Maura Healey has a commanding lead in this race though, with a UMass Lowell poll of likely Democratic primary voters showing her leading Diaz 62% to 17%, with 20% undecided or backing a different candidate. The poll also showed that Healey is seen as the stronger candidate on many issues, like Covid (where she leads 26 points), the economy (+31), and health care (+29). She is also viewed as a stronger leader (+41), the best representative of Massachusetts values (+29), and as more likely to win the general election (+55). Diaz leads in only one category, race relations (+12). Overall, it seems Healey will be the Democratic nominee.
On the Republican side, the leading candidate is former Massachusetts State Representative Geoff Diehl. Diehl, in stark contrast to Charlie Baker, is more aligned with former President Trump: he served as the co-chair of Trump’s 2016 campaign in Massachusetts, and is also endorsed by Trump. This makes it unlikely that he will win, as Trump lost to Biden 32 percent to 65 percent in 2020. Even after taking into account the current Republican-leaning political environment and the fact that Healey is more progressive than Biden, polls and Massachusetts politics show that it is still quite likely that Maura Healey will be our next Governor.
The Supreme Court is going to overturn Roe v. Wade. What does that mean, and what can I do?
Sam Posner
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start… We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled… It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives”.
As hard as it is to believe that those words were written by a Supreme Court justice in 2022, at a time when 70% or more of Americans favor a woman’s right to choose, the Court is expected to decide just that, based on a leaked ruling obtained by Politico and other news outlets on the night of Monday, May 2, written by Samuel Alito, and presumably joined by Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and possibly (though not likely) John Roberts.
Now, let’s take this leak at face value: assuming, for the sake of this article, that this ruling will be put into effect. And let’s examine its repercussions, both immediate and longer-term, and see where they lead us and what we can do.
First, and most explicitly, the Constitutional right to abortion has been done away with. Instead, the ability to decide the legality of abortion has been turned over to the states. Many states will almost certainly outlaw abortion completely, and some states even have trigger laws in place, which will ban abortion in that state the second that Roe is overturned.
But who does that affect most? Unsurprisingly, it is African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, uninsured Americans, teenage Americans, and so many others impacted by the structural inequalities embedded in and perpetuated by our political and legal system. These people, already burdened with lower-quality medical care and advice as well as less access to critical resources, will now be faced with a decision that no one should ever be forced to make: either bear a child that they cannot afford to raise, one who might be a product of rape or incest, one whose birth may endanger it as well as the mother, or seek out dangerous methods of terminating the pregnancy that could endanger them legally as well as bodily. More children will be born into desolate poverty and destitution, their chance at any recourse from that poverty fundamentally hindered by those same conservatives that forced their mothers to carry them to term in the first place.
Even beyond these real-world effects, there is serious trouble in the mechanics of this decision. If this ruling is issued as written and reported, the principle of stare decisis, or the idea that past precedent should define future ruling. Instead of adhering to this principle, the court has created a new doctrine wherein they can rule, independent of precedence, completely at their whim. The bottom line is this: The Supreme Court of the United States will issue a ruling completely contrary to conventional legal theory, one that fundamentally strips away reproductive rights in a way that will indisputably lead to harm for those being forced to carry children to term, as well as for those children themselves.
Second, there is language within the ruling itself that could have damning repercussions beyond just those of the immediate decision. Specifically, text from the ruling states that, although the 3rd, 9th, and 14th amendments guarantee some rights that are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution, those rights must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” to be protected under the Constitution. By that definition, any number of landmark rulings could be overturned on the basis that the rights that they guaranteed were not deeply rooted in the history and tradition of our country. Cases such as Loving v. Virginia, which guaranteed the right to interracial marriage. Cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut, which guaranteed the right to access contraceptives. Cases such as Engel v. Vitale, which ruled that mandatory school prayer was unconstitutional. And cases such as Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges, which guaranteed the right to same-sex relationships and marriage. All in danger, due to the rights that they guarantee not being “deeply rooted” in our history—not because they are not intrinsically American, but because of systemic racism, homophobia, and a lack of respect for non-Christians that were all too pervasive in our early years as a country, and are certainly still present today. All in all, this ruling spells danger not just for reproductive rights, but LGBTQ+ rights and the rights of racial and religious minorities within our country.
So what can be done? Some states have already taken up the onus. Massachusetts is one of about a dozen states that protects the right to an abortion, either in their laws or their state Constitutions, so nothing would fundamentally change here or within those dozen other states if this ruling goes into effect. But looking outside of our “blue bubble”, many states have so-called trigger laws on the books, designed to severely limit or outright ban abortion in the event that Roe is overturned. Many states without trigger laws are expected to outlaw abortion as well, or already have. However, there are a multitude of actions that can be taken to help those affected by the ruling, especially in those trigger law states. Organizations such as Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and so many others do amazing work every single day educating, advocating, and raising awareness about reproductive rights. Donations and other forms of amplifying these messages (such as retweets and comments on social media) can go a long way in helping protect these rights, in courts of law and in the court of public opinion. Beyond that, call your representatives and senators. Write letters. Attend protests. Make your voice heard in any way you can. And, most importantly of all: vote. Many of you reading this will be able to vote come November. If you are registered, do your research. If you aren’t registered but are eligible, register and then do your research. Vote for candidates who support the right to choose, and who support the right to privacy for all Americans.
In the face of this ruling, it’s okay to be angry. I’m angry too. But let’s make sure that we use that anger in the right way. Don’t give up the fight. Rather than retreat to the sidelines in frustration, we have to dig in deeper and continue to push, because so many people are depending on us doing just that. With that in mind, let’s get to work.
How Natick High School Can (and Must!) Decrease its Environmental Impact
Ella Stern, EIC
“This report is a dire warning about the consequences of inaction,” Hoesung Lee, Chair of the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), said following the IPCC’s 2022 climate report. This report issued a frightening conclusion: unless sweeping action is taken quickly, the effects of climate change will increase to such a degree that adapting to them will be impossible. Despite this scientifically-backed discovery and the existential issue it poses, there has been an infuriating lack of action in our government. As young people, Natick High School students strongly fear a future ridden with the effects of climate change—or, worse, no future at all. Especially in the face of widespread inaction, we know that our community must do its part. As Natick High School looks forward to a new school year and new administration, it must continue its trajectory towards a smaller environmental footprint.
An environmental audit done for Natick High School a few years ago found that 50% of the cafeteria waste was compostable. As such, a composting program would make a huge impact on NHS’s environmental footprint.
This year, students in NHS’s Earth Club instituted a composting program in our school cafeteria. In collaboration with the Natick Sustainability Committee, Black Earth composting, and TV Broadcasting student Rachel Garrity ’23, Earth Club members obtained composting bins, developed an incentive program, and gave up two weeks of lunches to staff the composting table. About a month after the February 28th launch of the composting program, the school’s compost filled two 48-gallon bins each week. Earth Club member Nora Moldover ’23 was excited about how well-received the program was. However, Nora was disappointed in students who pretended to compost just to get a lollipop (which was the reward for composting), and in the fact that composting levels have decreased since the two-week incentive program ended.
The composting program was an important step towards decreasing NHS’s food waste, but it must be expanded in future years. To prioritize quality over quantity for the composting program’s first year, Earth Club decided to start with only one compost bin so that they could make sure that people composted only food waste. (Adding non-compostable items can contaminate the entire load of compost.) However, they hope to be able to expand their program to the school kitchen to capture food waste coming from meal prep, and to the preschool. In addition, although Nora was pleasantly surprised by the number of people who were willing to walk to the middle of the cafeteria to compost, adding compost bins to different areas of the cafeteria would likely increase the number of students who compost, simply because it would be easier to remember to compost and to get to the bin in time. Other possible ways to expand Natick’s composting program include allowing students to compost compostable materials that aren’t food, such as napkins, and informing students that they can sign up to compost at home through Black Earth Composting.
The composting program is focusing on the 50% of the NHS cafeteria’s waste that is compostable, so we need other programs to tackle the remaining 50%. Introducing reusable or compostable plates, bowls, and utensils would be a great way to do this. Currently, school lunch is served in tinfoil, on styrofoam trays, in paper bowls with a non-recyclable wax coating, or in plastic bowls, with non-recyclable plastic utensils. The tinfoil and plastic bowls would be recyclable if they were free of food residue; however, they are almost always contaminated by the food that was served on them. Beside the bathroom sinks, there are no sinks available in the cafeteria to decontaminate them. Investing in sinks or, better yet, reusable kitchenware would eliminate a major source of waste for the school, and would prevent them from having to buy new kitchenware every day.
In addition to its small scale, another challenge for the composting program is the school’s lack of composting knowledge. On more than one occasion, Earth Club volunteers have had to fish non-compostable items out of the heap of half-eaten food in the compost bin so that the entire load wouldn’t be contaminated. If students knew more about which items they could and couldn’t compost, this issue would be avoided. Furthermore, increased education about composting and the climate crisis in general would make it so that more students composted because they wanted to help the environment, rather than because they wanted lollipops and raffle tickets.
As such, an important policy change for Natick High School (and all of the Natick Public Schools) to make is increased education about the effects and solutions of the climate crisis. Students are guaranteed to grow up in a world influenced by a changing environment. Not learning about this in school will not make the problem go away. In fact, it will make it worse, as it will cause students to be less motivated and prepared to advocate for solutions—or to develop solutions themselves.
Miriam Siegel ’22 is one of the action coordinators for Sunrise NHS, a club that fights for climate policy as part of the national youth-led Sunrise Movement. In an interview, she said that climate education must extend down to our youngest students, who will be impacted by the climate crisis most of all. She also stressed the importance of students learning that the climate crisis disproportionately affects the marginalized communities who contributed the least to the problem. If this wasn’t included in climate education, the solutions students grow up to create would not address the climate crisis fully or equitably.
Miriam added that switching to 100% clean energy is the most important step NHS can take in decreasing its environmental footprint. Earth Club member Sage Nguyen ’23 agreed, saying that NHS uses a lot of electricity because it is such a large building, so carbon neutrality would have a drastic impact on the school’s environmental footprint. As Miriam pointed out, “[t]he install of the solar panels in the faculty lot in 2020 was a big step forward, but as the climate crisis reaches a point of no return, we need to be achieving 100% clean energy as soon as possible.” This is especially true since, according to an article by Natick Patch, the solar panels were predicted to produce less than half of NHS’s 2,000,000 kWh/year energy use, meaning that a significant amount of our energy still comes from nonrenewable sources.
Other ideas for decreasing NHS’s impact on the environment include setting up a portal or dropbox for student ideas about increased sustainability and organizing climate-centered events, such as trash pick-ups and educational sessions about the climate crisis and its solutions.
Natick High School has a plethora of ways to decrease its environmental impact, and it must begin to implement more of them. Our school supports its students’ futures by providing them with a quality education, so, through actions and policies, it must decrease its environmental impact so that students have a liveable planet on which to carry out their futures.