By Anna Gustafson for the Pennsylvania Independent.
Broadcast version by Danielle Smith for Keystone State News Connection reporting for the Pennsylvania Independent-Public News Service Collaboration

Cindy Stewart worked for 54 years before retiring. Now, instead of enjoying retired life, the Allentown resident is worried about her Social Security benefits as the Trump administration plans thousands of job cuts and office closures at the Social Security Administration.

“I feel it’s something that I’m deserving of because I’ve paid 54 years and worked hard, and I really, truly count on it,” Stewart said. “And the way they talk, it’s going to be wiped away. They’re going to make it look like it’s not doing as well as it is, and they’re going to break it. It’s very upsetting. I think everybody’s so upset and frustrated, because what can we do?”

Stewart was one of nearly 500 people who crowded into the cavernous Cathedral Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem on March 20 for an event billed as a “People’s Town Hall.” Organized by a number of Democratic organizations, including the Pennsylvania Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee, the event was part of a national effort to host town halls in competitive congressional districts where constituents could air their anger, frustration and sadness over the plans and actions of the Trump administration, including possible cuts to Medicaid and worries about Social Security checks continuing to arrive.

Organizers invited U.S. Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, a Republican who defeated Democratic incumbent Susan Wild in the November election, to the town hall held in Mackenzie’s 7th Congressional District, but he did not attend. Instead, Mackenzie hosted his own telephone town hall at the same time. Wild, who served three terms in the House, attended the event.

The town hall drew a standing-room only crowd. In front of a group of federal, state and local Democratic lawmakers and officials, the crowd shared a long list of concerns about the Trump administration. Many of those who spoke became emotional during the evening, wiping away tears as they described the harm Medicaid cuts would pose and anger over members of the Trump administration criticizing the Social Security program, which serves approximately 69 million Americans, the majority of whom are retirees. 

“I can’t express how upsetting it is because we don’t know what’s going to happen,” said Darlene Horwath, who traveled from Kutztown to attend the town hall. “We depend on Social Security somewhat, and with the economy tanking also, are we going to be out in the street? What’s going to happen when everything’s gone? Because that’s what the direction is.”

Colleen and Russ Sutton, who are retired nurses from Bethlehem, also shared their worries about what will happen to Social Security and Medicare under Trump. 

“I’m concerned about Social Security and Medicare,” Russ Sutton said. “I mean, we’re both on it, and it affects us. I’m concerned about it, and it’s not an entitlement when you pay into it. So I’m tired of hearing the word ‘entitlement,’ because it isn’t. It’s like you buy insurance, you pay for it, and this is insurance that you paid for all your life.”

While the White House has insisted that cuts to Social Security, including eliminating thousands of jobs at the Social Security Administration and shuttering Social Security offices, won’t affect Social Security benefits, retirees at the town hall said they fear otherwise. 

“There’s no other recourse for us to do. I mean, the food banks and the services that are state-provided are at their limit,” Horwath said. 

Attendees said they hope Mackenzie hears his constituents’ concerns about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs that have been cut or are facing cuts. Sitting near an empty chair with a name card on it that read “Rep. Ryan Mackenzie,” attendees criticized the congressman’s decision not to attend the town hall.

“He won’t show up,” Colleen Sutton said. “That’s one of the reasons why there are other Democratic leaders here to answer questions for us.”

Wild also criticized Mackenzie’s absence. 

“In my first term, by the end of March, we had done three town halls, live ones, one of them in the reddest, reddest part of our district,” Wild said. “It was not a fun experience for me. It was a packed house, lots of people who definitely did not vote for me, but I sat there for two hours and I answered questions.”

Mackenzie’s office did not respond to the Pennsylvania Independent’s request for comment. During his phone town hall, Mackenzie addressed concerns about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, according to reporting by Lehigh Valley Live. 

“No changes should be occurring for Social Security or Medicare,” Mackenzie was quoted as saying. “Those are for seniors. And we want to make sure that we protect those benefits … [and] support making sure that the traditional Medicaid population, those vulnerable individuals, children, low-income seniors, individuals with disabilities, we want to make sure that the care is protected for them as well.”

In order to pay for President Donald Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy and the mass deportation of immigrants, the Republican-majority House in February passed a budget resolution that calls for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and a $2 trillion reduction in federal spending over the next 10 years. The resolution also instructs the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which oversees the Medicaid and Medicare programs, to cut at least $880 billion from its budget. Mackenzie and every other House Republican from Pennsylvania voted for that resolution.

In interviews with the Pennsylvania Independent, parents in the commonwealth said carving hundreds of millions of dollars from Medicaid would be devastating for children with disabilities and would end in people dying from a lack of affordable health care services.

Michelle Ritter, who provides mental health care services to children at a local clinic, said during the town hall that Medicaid cuts would be disastrous for the families she serves. She noted that the parents she works with, many of whom work more than one job to make ends meet, rely on programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, for mental health services for their children and food during the summer months when children are not in school.

“The world is scary when you can work so hard, and it is still too expensive to live,” Ritter said. 


Anna Gustafson wrote this article for the Pennsylvania Independent.


get more stories like this via email

Gov. Greg Abbott has until June 22 to sign or veto Senate Bill 3, which would ban consumable THC products in Texas.

Banning items like vapes and gummies were a priority for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick during the legislative session. He said he would call a special session if a bill was not drafted. Patrick argued retailers are selling products with unsafe levels of THC to minors.

Morgan Deany's family owns a hemp farm in east Texas. She said her family switched from growing commercial chickens to hemp to provide a product that could help people suffering from different ailments.

"We wanted to make something to give back to animals and to people that was a healthy alternative versus the usual pharmaceutical products," Deany explained. "Hemp is so good for CBD."

Lawmakers authorized the sale of consumable hemp in 2019. Since then, thousands of cannabis dispensaries have opened across the state. The industry generates around $8 billion a year and has created approximately 50,000 jobs.

The bill has received pushback from both sides of the political aisle. Many THC users, including veterans, testified they use the products to ease chronic pain and anxiety. Patrick contended consumers, especially children, are buying products with dangerous amounts of THC but Deany countered it is not what they experienced.

"It came with some controversy," Deany acknowledged. "We had planes and helicopters flying over our property thinking that we were growing marijuana. Then we had to send off samples of our plants, pretty frequently, to make sure that it stayed underneath a certain level of THC."

If the governor doesn't sign or veto the measure, it will automatically become law.


get more stories like this via email

CORRECTION: The name of the California law is the 'End of Life Option Act.' A previous version of the story used the word 'Options,' not 'Option.' (11:20 a.m. PDT, June 16, 2025)

California's law legalizing medical aid in dying could be made permanent if lawmakers approve a bill currently before the State Assembly.

Senate Bill 403 would eliminate the sunset clause in the 2015 End of Life Option Act.

The law allows mentally capable, terminally ill patients with less than six months to live to get a prescription to end their life.

Advocate Dan Diaz says his wife, Brittany Maynard, moved to Oregon in 2014 to make use of that state's Death With Dignity Act.

"Brittany is gone, so now I'm fighting for all terminally ill individuals that might find themselves in Brittany's predicament," said Diaz, "so that they don't have to do what she did, of leaving their home state after being told you have six months to live."

The End of Life Option Act is currently set to expire in five years. Medical aid in dying is legal in 11 states plus Washington D.C. -- but California is the only jurisdiction with a sunset provision.

Leslie Chinchilla, California state manager with Compassion & Choices Action Network, said over the past decade, there hasn't been a single substantiated case of abuse involving medical aid in dying statewide.

"The California Department of Health does a yearly report on medical aid in dying," said Chinchilla. "There has been no instance of coercion or abuse, and really the law is working as intended."

In 2023, more than 1,200 terminally ill Californians obtained prescriptions for medical aid in dying and 69% took the medication.

Patients with end-stage renal disease have two treatment options: dialysis or a kidney transplant but because donor kidneys are scarce and wait times are long, most will need to start dialysis while they remain on the transplant list.

Research from Arizona State University aims to better understand the differences in the decision-making process among clinicians about whether to accept or reject a donor kidney.

Ellen Green, associate professor of health solutions at Arizona State University, the study's principal investigator, said candidates are matched with an organ donor through the nonprofit United Network for Organ Sharing and once matches are made, they are sent out to clinics where patients with end-stage renal disease are on waiting lists.

Green and her co-investigators want to determine if an individual clinician's willingness plays a role in accepting or rejecting a kidney donation.

"In this initial study, we don't know whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing," Green observed. "It could be that the variability is demonstrating that some clinicians are pushing the envelope while other clinicians are learning and have resources to deal with certain types of transplants that maybe are higher risk."

There are about 90,000 people in the U.S. that are waiting for a kidney transplant, and 11 people die every day in that wait, according to UNOS. Studies show while many kidney donations are deemed viable, almost 30% are declined for transplantation despite strong demand. In Arizona, 730 kidney transplants were completed in 2024, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.

As an economist, Green noted it is a challenge to understand how a system which is not driven by price operates. She acknowledged while their study looks to learn more about clinicians' willingness, she understands other variables can affect the decision-making process.

She hopes her work will help increase the availability of donated kidneys.

"What we want to better understand is, from a clinician-to-clinician perspective, is there something that we can do or better understand about this decision-making process that we can leverage to increase those chances," Green emphasized.

Green pointed out understanding individual decision-making is something flying under the radar and argued it needs to be incorporated into current models, otherwise opportunities to have successful kidney transplants could be negatively affected.