In the spring of 1947, Navy sailor Lincoln Grahlfs went to an Oakland, Calif., hospital suffering from a 103-degree fever, a strange facial abscess and an abnormal white blood cell count.

A doctor there responded with an unorthodox treatment: X-rays to the sailor’s face with only a shield to cover his eyes.

Soon after, the abscess and other symptoms cleared.

“He said, ‘We call that the hair of the dog that bit ya,'” Grahlfs told NPR.

The dog that bit Grahlfs, in this case, was his exposure to the U.S. nuclear testing program.

In his 20s, the petty officer first class participated in Operation Crossroads in the Pacific Ocean, the first atomic bomb tests since the 1945 nuclear weapon attacks in Japan.

Over the next seven decades, more mysterious illnesses surfaced for Grahlfs — and in the generations of his family that followed.

Military servicemembers like Grahfls are known as “atomic veterans,” and they’re on the verge of losing federal benefits meant to compensate for the long-term health effects of their work.

They’re part of a group fighting for a critical lifeline known as the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA. The 34-year-old law is set to expire next month.

“I am affected by this thing as far as I’m concerned — lifetime — because it’s in my blood,” Grahfls said from his senior living facility in Madison, Wis.

At 101 years old, he is the country’s oldest known atomic veteran.

He’s one of least 200,000 U.S. troops who participated in the tests and cleanup operations during World War II and later in the Pacific Ocean, the Nevada desert, New Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean.

They took the human brunt of deadly ionizing radiation that contaminated nearby lands, water and communities. Many are said to have died of related illnesses.

Now, a group of lawmakers are pushing to renew legislation to recognize that a new generation of workers and residents may still be affected by the tests, including uranium mine workers and so-called “downwinders” caught in toxic exposures.
‘A godsend’

Keith Kiefer, national commander of the National Association of Atomic Veterans, or NAAV, participated in cleanup operations in the 1970s.

The Air Force veteran’s work was based at the Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands, and he’s suffered his own share of illnesses. He isn’t eligible for the existing version of RECA , but a new Senate bill would expand the program to include him.

Kiefer took over as head of the organization in 2018 and says he has seen the toll of radiation exposure on the group’s members and their families.

“In some cases, you can’t hold a job at all. … But on top of the suffering … you have the financial burden,” Kiefer said. “Often RECA is a difference for these veterans between potentially becoming bankrupt or becoming homeless. So it’s you know, it’s a godsend.”

Since its enactment in 1990, RECA has provided lump sum payments of up to $75,000 to atomic veterans and others sickened by the nuclear testing program. In all, the Justice Department program has disbursed$2.7 billion in payments to more 40,000 recipients.

It’s now set to sunset June 7.

The Oscar-winning film of the year, Oppenheimer,spotlighted the Manhattan project and the atomic bomb’s earliest days. But a key group of lawmakers say the film’s attention may not be enough.
‘Your government poisoned you’

On Capitol Hill, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has spotlighted the issue in his state, where generations of Missourians have been exposed to radioactive waste tied to the Manhattan project.

And now he has a dire warning for Congress.

“We have one month until the RECA program expires, goes dark,” he said on his way to Senate votes on a recent morning.

In the past year, the Democratic-led Senate has approved multiple bipartisan bills to reauthorize and expand the RECA program, with a more recent amendment garnering a large bipartisan vote. And Hawley has threatened to hold up additional legislation to pass the plan in the Senate again.

However, the Republican-led House has refused to take up RECA for months. Hawley is betting House Speaker Mike Johnson will change that.

“It’s going to be really hard to … say, ‘No, we think that you should get nothing despite the fact your government poisoned you,'” Hawley said. “I think at the end of the day, the speaker is not going to want to deliver that message right before an election.”

Some House Republicans have raised alarm about the plan’s price tag.

However, sponsors say they’ve addressed those concerns. They say a 2023 estimate projecting the program’s costs of $143 billion has since been shaved down to $50 billion to $60 billion instead.

“Thousands of Americans will lose the lifesaving, literally lifesaving help that they have come to depend on,” Hawley said. “And people in my state, victims in my state, in New Mexico, other states will get nothing.”
‘An American issue’

New Mexico Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján knows about the need for that lifesaving help all too well.

He’s seen the scores of New Mexicans and tribal members sickened since Trinity, the code name for the first nuclear test in 1945.

His father also worked at the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory, where the weapon was developed. His father died in his 70s after he was diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer.

“He was not a smoker, but he got sick. And we believe he got sick because of the work that he did,” he said. “I saw him leave sooner than he should have. And what that did to my mom and him and to our family.”

This past week, Luján and Hawley were among a group of 30 bipartisan lawmakers who signed a bipartisan letterto Speaker Johnson demanding the House take up the legislation before time runs out.

Every year since 2008, Luján has filed legislation to expand the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. This annual 17-year tradition is now consumed by supreme frustration.

“We need to pass this. This injustice is far too long. It’s decades and decades old,” Luján said. “This is not a blue state or red state issue. This is an American issue.”

Grahlfs says regardless of the program’s fate, the struggles remain.

A retired sociology professor who wrote about the atomic vets, Grahfls has outlived both his children who also suffered from curious illnesses. A granddaughter was born with a deformity.

He argues it’s all tied to his exposure to radiation.

“People who have been affected by radiation are still affected,” he said, “whether they sunset the act or not.”
Next week, the atomic veterans will join forces with other survivors on Capitol Hill to personally pressure Congress to approve the plan that acknowledges their sacrifices.

Source link

The day before a Friday evening deadline, the Missouri Senate began debate on Thursday over the state budget for the upcoming fiscal year.Senators began work on the budget around 10 a.m. Thursday morning, with discussions already held on some of the bills that make up the budget.The legislature must complete the budget by 6 p.m. Friday leaving lawmakers with less than 30 hours to complete the task.Due to time constraints, the process of passing this year’s budget is different.Normally, once the Senate makes its changes, the budget is then sent back to the House. Then, a set of conference committees consisting of representatives and senators meet and decide the final budget product.However, with the bills still in the Senate, there’s no time for potential conference committees.Instead, the Senate and House have collaborated on the budget behind closed doors to try to reach a product that the House would take up and pass without objections.“Decisions were being made last night at two in the morning still, the House and myself and some of our colleagues, were still in the building and trying to hash out, you know, a responsible path forward,” Appropriations Chair Sen. Lincoln Hough, R-Springfield, said Thursday.Hough also said part of the reason why the process has been in a time crunch is because the House was late in passing the budget and sending it to the Senate.However, Sen. Bill Eigel, R-Weldon Spring, blamed the delay on the Senate’s effort to pass the Federal Reimbursement Allowance, a tax on health care facilities that funds Medicaid, last week instead of working on the budget.“Because you were so interested in passing the FRA last week, willing to push a record setting filibuster on the floor, the whole week was burned up. And as a result of that, we didn’t have enough time to do conference committees this week,” Eigel said.Eigel, along with other members of the Missouri Freedom Caucus, filibustered for more than 40 hours last week against the FRA and instead demanded the Senate take up and pass a resolution that would make it harder to amend the state constitution.The FRA was given initial approval in the Senate but has not yet passed the chamber. Senators also have not yet passed a resolution making it harder to amend the constitution.Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden, R-Columbia, defended the decision to attempt to pass the FRA before the budget.“In a best-case scenario, if everybody’s operating in good faith and not leveraging every single possible thing they ever could, it makes more sense to do the FRA before you do the budget,” Rowden said.The House sent over its version of the budget on April 4. Their $50.7 billion total budget was roughly $2 billion less than what was initially proposed by Gov. Mike Parson.The Senate appropriations committee passed its version of the budget on April 24. That budget totaled $53 billion, about $3 billion more than the House budget.However, the final product is likely to be closer to the House’s total than the Senate’s. So far, the budget bills introduced on the Senate floor have totaled less than their Senate committee predecessors.Failure to pass the budget would likely lead to a special session, since the budget would have to be in place before the upcoming fiscal year begins in July.Gov. Mike Parson said before the Senate convened Thursday that his office hadn’t seen the budget yet.“My assumption is without any input from the office, it’s problematic,” Parson said.Parson also spoke against the $8 million in the budget for state troops at the Texas/Mexico border.“If that does go through the budget, part of that will be vetoed, because we’ve never asked for that and we don’t need that money,” Parson said. “I think that was more of a political statement people were trying to make to say we support that.”Parson asked the legislature for $2.2 million this year to fund his plan sending troops to the border. Parson signed that budget bill into law on Wednesday.However, regarding the proposed continuation of funds within next year’s budget, Parson said he doesn’t expect troop presence to be a long-term commitment.

Source link

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson signed legislation Thursday that would bar the state’s Medicaid program from steering any funds to providers like Planned Parenthood.While supporters of the measure praised it as a way to prevent money from going to an organization most known for abortion services, critics contend it will close off access to health care like cancer screenings and wellness exams.For years, Missouri Republicans had sought to stop any funds from going to abortion providers or their affiliates. While abortion is illegal in Missouri, Planned Parenthood clinics provide reproductive health care services like cancer screenings and contraceptive access.Parson said House Budget Chairman Cody Smith’s legislation would preserve Missouri’s status as a “pro-life state.”“It’s a tremendous victory for life in the state of Missouri,” said Smith, R-Carthage.State Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, an Arnold Republican who handled the legislation in her chamber, praised Parson for not only signing the bill but also a previous one that ended up banning most abortions in Missouri.“Under his leadership, he’s done everything he can to make sure that taxpayer dollars do not go to organizations that support and fund abortions,” she said.A statement from Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri condemned Parson’s signing of the legislation.“By denying Medicaid patients’ right to receive health care from Planned Parenthood, politicians are directly obstructing access to much-needed health services, including birth control, cancer screenings, annual wellness exams, and STI testing and treatment,” the statement said.It continued: “Planned Parenthood health centers play a critical role in Missouri’s health care safety net. ‘Defunding’ Planned Parenthood risks the sustainability of the state’s entire health care system and the health of all Missourians who rely on it.”Prior efforts to bar Medicaid funds from going to Planned Parenthood through the budgetary process were struck down in court. That prompted lawmakers like Smith and Coleman to try to pass the measure as a standalone bill. Planned Parenthood’s statement contended the bill could violate federal Medicaid law, since it “guarantees every patients’ right to choose any willing and qualified provider.”House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, said last month she expects the bill to be challenged in court.“This is kind of a new tactic. Obviously this will be handled a little bit differently, but I expect the outcome to be the same,” Quade said.The bill goes into effect Aug. 28.Planned Parenthood said its health centers in Missouri “remain open and are committed to expanding care to provide for those who relied on Medicaid for family planning services.”

Source link