Connect with us

Opinions

Importing drugs endangers lives

Exposes millions of Americans to potentially counterfeit meds

Published

on

prescription drug importation, gay news, Washington Blade
(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

On most issues, Democrats and Republicans remain deeply divided. But there’s one policy that unites both parties — prescription drug importation.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration issued an executive order enabling states and individuals to import cheaper medications from foreign countries. The Biden camp has similarly voiced support for allowing Americans to buy drugs from Canada.

Both parties have good intentions. Making medicines more affordable for patients is a goal nearly everyone shares. But importation isn’t the right solution. It would expose millions of Americans to potentially counterfeit medications while offering few, if any, actual savings.

The FDA’s drug approval process is the gold standard in ensuring that medicines are safe and effective. But imported drugs wouldn’t go through that process — the FDA lacks the resources to subject them to the same rigorous scrutiny. And while there are plenty of legitimate online pharmacies in Canada, there are also plenty of scammers looking to make an easy buck by shipping bottles of fake pills to vulnerable Americans.

That’s why four former FDA commissioners sent a letter to Congress highlighting the dangers of circumventing our nation’s drug supply chain, which is currently the safest in the world. They warned that importing drugs would “harm patients and consumers and compromise the carefully constructed system that guards the safety of our nation’s medical products.”

Canadian health officials agree that importation could endanger American patients. They’ve previously warned that Canada will “not assure that products being sold to U.S. citizens are safe, effective, and of high quality.” The FDA itself openly states that it “cannot ensure the safety and effectiveness of drugs that it has not approved.”

This lack of oversight means that many “Canadian drugs,” which often originate in other countries and are merely shipped through Canada, are adulterated. One FDA study found that 85 percent of confiscated drugs that were supposedly imported from Canada were actually manufactured in 27 other countries. Of those drugs, many didn’t include English instructions, and some were counterfeits.

Counterfeit drugs pose a significant danger to patients here in the United States, especially the most vulnerable populations. Sixty percent of Americans suffer from chronic diseases that require regular adherence to medication. Communities of color, who suffer from chronic illness at higher rates than do white Americans, face even higher risks.

As someone who suffers from hypertension and Type 2 diabetes, I’m keenly aware of the perils of receiving counterfeit medicines. Over the years, some Americans have illegally imported medicines from what they thought were legitimate Canadian pharmacies, but the drugs turned out to have no active ingredients, or worse, contained toxic substances. If patients take ineffective drugs that amount to little more than sugar pills, their chronic conditions could spiral out of control.

Even if importation were completely safe — and it isn’t — it wouldn’t save Americans nearly as much money as proponents believe. That’s because Canada has no interest, and no ability, to act as America’s pharmacy.

There are simply too many American patients. Americans fill 4.5 billion prescriptions annually. Canada’s population is about 90 percent smaller than the U.S. population, so demand from the United States could overwhelm the Canadian drug market in just 38 days, according to one study. More than 1,500 drugs sit on Canada’s drug shortage list — the Canadian healthcare system hardly has the bandwidth to support billions of new requests from Americans.

That’s why Canadian patient groups have urged their leaders not to facilitate any large-scale drugs exports to the United States. And those leaders are listening. According to an internal briefing from the Canadian foreign ministry, Canada would “not support actions that could adversely affect the supply of prescription drugs in Canada.”

Drug importation, though well intentioned, is doomed to fail and could endanger many Americans’ health. It’s up to a Biden administration to reverse course and either rescind the Trump administration’s importation rule, or at the very least, instruct the FDA to not approve any state applications for importation programs.

Earl D. Fowlkes, Jr. is president and CEO of the Center for Black Equity.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

Adoption under suspicion

Italy and the US are two case studies

Published

on

The Coliseum in Rome on July 12, 2025. Italy is a case study of what can happen when the legal framework for adoption rights for same-sex couples is uncertain. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A right does not need to be banned to be restricted. Sometimes it only needs to be made uncertain.

That is what emerges from a closer examination of adoption access for same-sex couples across different countries. There is no broad legal rollback. What appears instead is a more subtle pattern: rights that remain on paper but become fragile, conditional, and uneven in practice.

Italy provides a clear example.

Since 2023, under the government of Giorgia Meloni, administrative decisions have limited the automatic recognition of both mothers in female same-sex couples, particularly in cases involving assisted reproduction abroad. In practice, many families have been forced into additional legal proceedings to validate relationships already established.

At the same time, Italy has intensified its opposition to surrogacy, extending penalties even to those who pursue it outside the country. Human rights organizations have warned that these measures disproportionately affect LGBTQ families, particularly male couples.

The judiciary, however, has pushed back.

In 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled that a non-biological mother cannot be excluded from legal recognition when there is a shared parental project. It also removed a long-standing restriction that prevented single individuals from accessing international adoption.

Italy has not eliminated these rights. But it has made them unstable.

When a right depends on litigation, judicial timelines, or shifting interpretations, it is no longer fully guaranteed.

In the United States, the structure differs, but the outcome converges.

At the federal level, same-sex couples can adopt. Yet the system varies widely across states.

Data from the Movement Advancement Project show that while some states explicitly prohibit discrimination in adoption, others provide no clear protections. In several states, licensed agencies can refuse to work with same-sex couples based on religious objections.

Access, therefore, is shaped not only by law, but by geography, institutions, and applied standards.

Research from the Williams Institute further complicates the narrative. Same-sex couples adopt and foster children at higher rates than different-sex couples.

The contradiction is clear.

Child welfare is invoked, yet the pool of available families is reduced. Faith is cited, yet it is used as a filter within publicly funded systems.

The consequences are tangible
children remain longer in care
processes become more complex
families face unequal scrutiny

What is happening in Italy and the United States is not isolated. Across parts of Europe, conservative governments have advanced legal frameworks that reinforce traditional definitions of family while limiting recognition of diverse ones.

Adoption is not always addressed directly. But the impact accumulates.

Options are restricted while the language of protection is used to justify it.

There is no need to soften it.

This is not only a debate about family models. It is a decision about who is recognized as family and who must continue asking for permission.

That is not neutral.

It is political.

And when a right depends on where you live, who evaluates you, or how hard you are willing to fight for it, that right is already being weakened.

Continue Reading

Opinions

ROSENSTEIN: Chavous for Democratic D.C. Council-at-Large

Committed to fighting for statehood for our 700,000 residents

Published

on

(Blade file image by Aram Vartian)

Kevin Chavous said, “I’m running for D.C. Council At-Large because Washingtonians deserve leadership focused on improving their everyday quality of life. Throughout my career, I’ve worked on the practical business of city government, and public policy, focused on solving real problems, and making government work better for the people it serves.”  

Kevin’s experience spans safer streets, affordable housing, early education and school readiness, workforce and economic opportunity, support for seniors, and the day-to-day operations of city government. The knowledge he brings to the office is grounded in experience, clear-eyed oversight, and a commitment to delivering results. His platform outlines his priorities and approach, but as he has said, “it’s not the end of the conversation. I believe the best solutions come from listening and working together.”

Kevin believes safe streets are the foundation of strong neighborhoods. He is committed to having Washingtonians feel secure in their neighborhoods, and working to ensure all public safety efforts are smart, fair, and effective. To Kevin that means an approach focusing on enforcement that works, prevention that matters, and a range of services to stop crime before it happens. Kevin supports smart, effective policing, with a focus on violent crime, and getting repeat offenders off the streets. To do this he will work to strengthen community policing with the aim of rebuilding trust in every community, which will improve neighborhood-level safety. He will introduce legislation to expand targeted mental health and crisis-response services. The goal again, to prevent violence before it occurs. He will work to see government coordinates youth diversion, workforce, and support programs, which can intervene early, and reduce recidivism.

Kevin understands housing stability is essential for families, seniors, and workers, to stay and thrive in D.C. His housing priorities focus on increasing the supply of affordable housing, helping people build long-term stability in the neighborhoods they call home. He will work to increase the affordable housing supply through zoning updates, ADUs, and adaptive reuse of vacant properties. He will submit legislation to strengthen programs that help first-time, and longtime homeowners, buy and then stay in their homes. He will work to expand permanent supportive housing and targeted rental assistance for vulnerable residents, and protect tenants ensuring housing laws are enforced clearly, and consistently. 

Kevin believes “every child should enter school ready to learn, with the support needed to succeed from day one. Early investment pays lifelong dividends – for families and for the District.” He will work on the Council to expand early childhood education, and school-readiness programs, citywide. He supports quality and affordable childcare for all children, birth to three, including seeing students begin the school year healthy, by supporting access to medical and dental screenings for all children. 

Kevin knows economic opportunity allows families and communities to thrive. He will fight to see D.C.’s growth creates real pathways to good jobs, strong local businesses, and long-term stability for residents in every ward. His approach connects workforce training, worker protections, and neighborhood investment, so that growth benefits the people who live here. He will work to expand job training, apprenticeships, and career pipelines tied to high-demand fields, including construction, healthcare, and infrastructure. He will fight to strengthen First Source and local hiring requirements, so D.C. residents benefit directly from major development projects such as the new RFK site. He will demand the government protect workers by enforcing wage, safety, and labor standards, and holding bad actors accountable. He will introduce legislation to invest more in neighborhood-based economic development, including small businesses, BIDs, and commercial-to-residential revitalization. 

Kevin has spoken out for the seniors in our city saying, “seniors built this city – and D.C. must ensure they can age with dignity, security, and independence.” Kevin will work to expand property tax relief and housing supports, so seniors can age in place. He will work with the AG to strengthen protections against fraud, exploitation, and predatory practices targeting seniors. He will support and work to expand nutrition, transportation, and community-based programs, that reduce the isolation many seniors face.

Kevin’s experience working for the Council, in the oversight role he had, gives him a practical understanding of what works, what doesn’t, and how to fix it – without delay. He will use that experience as he works to strengthen agency oversight to ensure laws are implemented as intended, and to improve service delivery by fixing bottlenecks, and outdated processes. Ensuring clear standards and accountability in inspections, enforcement, and permitting. Kevin will demand government use technology responsibly to improve efficiency, while protecting residents from fraud and abuse.

For all these reasons and more, I support Kevin Chavous. The more includes the fact Kevin has spoken out clearly, about the need to fight the antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, sexism and homophobia, all once again rearing their ugly heads in our society. He will fight to keep ICE out of our city, and to keep immigrants safe. He is committed to fighting for statehood for the 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia, while fighting for budget and legislative autonomy as we work toward statehood.  

Again, I urge the voters of D.C. to cast their ballot for Kevin Chavous for DC Council-at-Large.


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. 

Continue Reading

Opinions

Tennessee’s Charlie Kirk Act is harmful

Free speech doesn’t always go both ways

Published

on

Tennessee State Capitol Building (Photo by SeanPavonePhoto/Bigstock)

The state of Tennessee has a long history of political discrimination against its 225,000 LGBTQ citizens. In 2019, a district attorney remarked that gay people should not receive domestic violence protections, and in 2023, for five months in Murfreesboro, homosexual acts in public were illegal, prompting a federal judge to have the ordinance removed.

In 2022, I briefly lived in Tennessee and played rugby with the LGBTQ-inclusive Nashville Grizzlies, who welcomed me with open arms as an ally, teaching me that rugby isn’t always about winning or losing – it’s about creating a safe, inclusive, and joyful space for people looking to feel welcome.

In Tennessee, where 87% of the LGBTQ community has experienced workplace discrimination, and where, each year, countless bills that target their identities are introduced, it can be difficult to feel welcome. The Nashville Grizzlies played rugby with the exuberance of newly liberated people who were finally able to be their authentic selves. I was inspired by their brotherhood. 

When I read about the Charlie Kirk Act being passed last week, I felt a visceral need to write about it. 

While the bill is presented as legislation that strengthens free speech and encourages greater public discourse on campuses, it would effectively allow a school to expel a student who felt compelled to walk out on a speaker with hateful views, forcing marginalized groups to sit through existentially harmful rhetoric. 

And ironically, it doesn’t seem like free speech goes both ways — a Tennessee University administrator lost their job last year for sharing negative views on Charlie Kirk, and countless LGBTQ books have been banned not only in schools, but even in adult libraries.

We like to think that as time moves forward, progress is inevitable, but this isn’t always the case. In a 2023 study, 27% of LGBTQ Tennesseans and 43% of transgender people in the state have considered relocating, forcing them to reckon with leaving home in pursuit of a better life. Nashville Grizzlies Captain Ethan Thatcher told me, “I’ve thought about leaving Tennessee. Hard not to when the government does not want you here. What has kept me here is the Grizzlies community, and the thought that existence is resistance.”

Everybody in our country deserves to feel safe. I thought that was a core value of the American ethos, but apparently, in some states, certain groups are welcome while others are ostracized. 

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee should reject the Charlie Kirk Act.


Tyler Kania is a 2025 IAN Book of the Year nominated author and civil rights activist from Columbia, Conn.

Continue Reading

Popular