 |
|
|
|||||
Planned Parenthood is facing a new wave of existential threats, this time targeting its funding as a womens health provider. Three years after the U.S. Supreme Court removed the federal right to abortion, Planned Parenthood President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson shares why shes now turned to the same court to protect her organization from an attack by South Carolinas governor. Big funding attacks are also underway from Texas and the Trump Administration. McGill Johnsons approach to conflict, and how she motivates herself and her team, provides a telling window into leadership in duress. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company Bob Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. Planned Parenthood is at yet another inflection point. We’ve talked previously about the Dobbs case, the Supreme Court decision that allowed states to ban abortions. With the election of Donald Trump, there’s a new wave of challenges, particularly around funding for Planned Parenthood. This week, you’re back in front of the Supreme Court for oral arguments over South Carolina’s efforts to block Medicaid coverage of Planned Parenthood health centers. How uneasy is that? You haven’t had much luck with the Supreme Court recently. Well, what can I say? They’re coming from all sides. They are coming from a whole administration approach to try and take away healthcare for millions of people in this country. At every level of government we are under attack, and I do think that this Trump era, this new Trump era 2.0, is different, because they have consolidated power in every single branch, and they are using it with abandon, and watching them try, whether it’s a Medicaid defund, a Title 10 defund, potentially the Supreme Court case that could deny us access to Medicaid state by state, it just feels like everywhere we turn, they’re coming for us even when they know it’s not popular. Planned Parenthood’s known for its policy advocacy, but it operates 600 some health centers around the country providing care beyond just abortion services. The South Carolina case that is this week, it has this sort of potentially massive implications for that work. Something like half of the patients at Planned Parenthood centers use Medicaid, so this is sort of a way to shut down the flow of resources. Yes, and you’re absolutely correct. I mean, first of all, just to level set who Planned Parenthood is, Planned Parenthood is first and foremost a healthcare provider, providing millions of patients access to basic STI testing, and family planning, everything that you could imagine with respect to sexual and reproductive healthcare. Fifty percent of our patients are also Medicaid patients. Over 60% of our patients are in rural areas. This Supreme Court case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood of South Atlantic, is really about Governor McMaster, the governor of South Carolina, trying to insert his own opinion in order to deny South Carolinians the right to choose Planned Parenthood as a provider. Denying South Carolinians who use Medicaid from using that insurance at a Planned Parenthood means he would deny Planned Parenthood patients the right to choose their own doctor. It is so anti-freedom, is so anti-choice, is anti-libertarian, so anti-conservative government, but it is about power, and control, and trying to deny us access to care. The concern here is not only about the South Carolinians; it’s that this is a national case where other states could in fact follow McMaster’s lead if the Supreme Court gives them a go-ahead, and they could similarly try to deny access to Medicaid for Planned Parenthood patients. And it’s not specifically Medicaid that is being spent on abortions. Right, because Medicaid isn’t being spent on abortions because of the Hyde Amendment because Congress already has an amendment to most bills where federal tax dollars are not being spent on abortion services. This is about denying access to birth control, STI testings to breast cancer screenings, to wellness exams. One-out-of-three women comes to a Planned Parenthood, and have been to a Planned Parenthood in their lifetime. So a very significant reach in terms of who we see, and who we serve, and it’s trying to deny them access to choosing who their doctor should be. The administration strategy sometimes seems like they want to flood the zone with so much pushing of opponents, pushing organizations, corporate organizations to cause organizations to give up on something in order to protect a higher priority. Do you feel any of that pressure to prioritize in a different way in this environment? I can say I feel disappointment. I feel concerned for a number of really critical institutions in our society. Corporations are feeling a financial pressure to go against their core values. There may be lots of ways in which they’re reconciling that. I know as a leader that your values are, that’s your integrity, that’s who you are. And so I cannot actually stand here as the president of Planned Parenthood, and say, “We’re going to walk away from the very communities that we have committed ourselves to providing care for just because the administration may be a little bit easier on me.” It goes very much against what Planned Parenthood stands for, and how we were founded. We were founded by providing birth control, which at the time was not actually legal. We were literally born into resistance. And I do think that the word resistance is a little funny these days, but when you are providing care that has been stigmatized, that in itself is an act of resistance, that’s how we have to stay grounded in our mission. Planned Parenthood is, as we’ve said, under constant attack, sometimes metaphorically, sometimes financially, sometimes physically. Do you feel like you’re personally under attack, and, sort of, what’s the mood and morale for your team? The Planned Parenthood health center workers who walk through protesters, who walk through probably more protesters now, given that the Trump essentially gave immunity to several of those protesters who had been arrested under the Face Act, and allow them to essentially come back to harassing our workers, I’m worried about them. I’m worried about the patients who have to navigate that. I’m worried about the abortion providers who are day in, day out, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles back and forth between cities and affiliates in order to ensure that everyone can meet the need. I think for my team, we center them, and we ensure that they have what they need. I chose this fight. You don’t come to Planned Parenthood by accident. I don’t worry about myself. I worry about supporting all of the people who show up every day because they care about this mission. You have days though, sometimes you’re like, “All right, I signed up for this fight, but this fiht has become harder, and harder, and harder, and I’ve been in this fight, and maybe it’s time to just make my life a little easier.” Well, I mean, there are always days, but I think sometimes, and I think this is a particular kind of leadership, where sometimes you see a fight, and you want in on it, and I think you can’t do this job unless you relish taking on the fight because you really believe in the cause. And so are there days where I’m tired? Are there days where I think I can’t get on another plane, or I’m trying to balance a lot with my family, and make sure I’m back for the high school musical? Those are the sorts of things that every executive is making a choice on, but I can tell you what does pull me through, and that is those moments when I am sitting on a plane, and someone comes up, and they say, “Thank you for doing what you’re doing.” They may grab my hand a little tighter. They may look me in the eyes. They may tell me their whole story. Being able to bear witness to the difference that Planned Parenthood has made in their lives, I think is something different than what a lot of CEOs may experience in their day-to-day life. And so it is grueling. I won’t lie on that regard, but it really means something. This is just an honor. I don’t know how to top this. It will be an honor to have served in this role.
Category:
E-Commerce
President Donald Trump has just expanded the social media surveillance system for immigrants. Starting in May, the United States will begin collecting the social media handles of all permanent resident applicants. That means anyone seeking a Green Cardincluding those already living in the United Statesmust sign up to be digitally surveilled by the government. Marco Rubio also reportedly demanded that diplomats scrutinize the social media accounts of student visa applicants, withholding approval from those who criticize the United States or Israel. This expansion is expected to have a chilling effect on the internet economy. Under government surveillance, current and future immigrants may shut down their online presences out of fear of retribution. Social media CEOsMark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and othersstood at Trumps inauguration and donated to his Victory Fund. Will they continue to support him now that hes threatening their bottom line? Trumps moves against immigrants’ online freedom During Trumps first administration, the Department of Homeland Security began tracking the social media accounts of immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants. But the former president has now expanded that policy through an executive order titled Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats. Immigrants will now have to disclose their social media handles when applying for Green Cards, asylum, or any other immigration benefit. For those who have already entered the country, the executive order suggests that future forms will likely require social media disclosures as well. Most experts predict this policy will crush digital free speech. Even the Department of Homeland Security appears wary. It issued a 60-day call for public comment, inviting agency representatives and citizens to share concerns. Since the forum opened a month ago, it has received over 1,000 comments, calling the policy a gross violation of civil liberties, an unreasonable violation of privacy, and Orwellianism. One commenter wrote, Simply – Stay out of people’s lives who are here legally. Meanwhile, DHS Secretary Marco Rubio is intensifying scrutiny of student visa holders. Following Trumps executive order, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has begun detaining student protesters across the country. One such case involved Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts PhD candidate, who was apprehended on the street by plainclothes, masked officers. Now Rubio is demanding that diplomats inspect the social media pages of student visa activists. According to a cable reported by The New York Times, Rubio instructed that certain applications be sent to the fraud prevention unit for a mandatory social media check. This includes individuals suspected of having terrorist ties or sympathies, as well as anyone who held a student visa beginning on October 7, 2023the date of Hamass attack on Israel. Will Silicon Valley take note? There are nearly 13 million legal permanent residents in the U.S.13 million social media users who may quiet or delete their online presences due to the expansion of Trumps digital surveillance state. Thats not even counting the countless foreign nationals seeking student or travel visas who could do the same. Such behavior could significantly shrink the user bases of major social media platforms. And the CEOs of those companiesmany of whom supported Trumpmight start to feel the effects. Among those onstage at his inauguration were Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Sundar Pichai (Google), and Shou Zi Chew (TikTok). What happens when immigrant users stop turning to Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok out of fear? Zuckerberg, in particular, has recently leaned into the rights free speech rhetoric. In January, he cut Facebooks already limited fact-checking operations, claiming they were too politically biased and shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas. It was a bold move in the name of online free expressionif youre aligned with the right ideology. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is using Zuckerbergs own platforms to surveil people with the “wrong” ideologies and deny them entry into the countryor worse. What will it take for these Big Tech CEOs to abandon their MAGA pipe dreams? For some financiers, it was tariffs. Maybe for them, itll be a direct hit to their customer base.
Category:
E-Commerce
When my emergency IAR app sounds at 3 a.m., theres no room for ego, second-guessing, or hesitation. In that critical moment, all that matters is trust, teamwork, and execution. While I have spent decades in the corporate world, some of my most valuable leadership lessons have come from my experience as a volunteer EMS first responder. In the field, when Im assisting in a life-threatening trauma situation or responding to a car accident, leadership is put to the test under extreme pressure. But whether Im piloting an ambulance on a dark highway or guiding my company through turbulent times, the principles remain the same: Know your role, remove the noise, maintain a true north, and harness the power of the collective. First responders make real-time decisions under pressure, relying on trust and collaboration, and CEOs today must embrace the same mindset. While I see some leaders reverting to top-down management in response to rapid change and shifting policies, this approach can actually hinder long-term success. True leadership isnt about command and controlits about creating an environment of clarity, trust, and adaptability, where teams are empowered to act decisively and navigate uncertainty together. Its especially critical that executives embrace this ethos as their organizationsand their teamsare increasingly beset by outside noise and pressures that can potentially distract from their mission. Heres what leaders can learn from first responders: Know When to Take a Back Seat In emergency response, knowing your role is crucial. A 17-year-old EMT might direct someone twice their age, and thats exactly as it should be. Whether you are administering first aid, navigating traffic, or coordinating logistics, each team member must be clear about their responsibilities so they can work together in harmony. I recently watched a young ambulance corps captain in her mid-20s take command of a complex mental health emergency. With police on the scene and tensions high, she led with a calm, tactical presence that turned a chaotic situation into a controlled, compassionate response. Her ability to take charge had nothing to do with age or rankit was about skill, confidence, and knowing when to step up. The same holds true in any organization. Leadership isnt about titles or hierarchy; its about recognizing strengths and empowering the right people to lead when it matters most. Remove the Noise, Focus on Your North Star In an emergency, chaos surrounds you: passing traffic, weather conditions, bystanders, distraught family members. First responders must filter out this noise to focus on their task at hand. A clear example of this is a severe car accident I responded to where an older gentleman had driven off the highway into the woods. The vehicle was so badly damaged that we couldn’t even identify what kind of car it was. In these emergency situations, it’s the moments you take to assess the situation that make all the difference. Moving quickly doesn’t mean rushing in. It means taking the time to carefully evaluate the scene, calculating the arrival time of fire and additional emergency services, and identifying the right individual to enter the vehicle. By filtering out the surrounding chaosthe twisted metal, the external commotion, the emotional intensitywe were able to focus on our critical mission of saving the mans life. As a leader, removing noise isn’t about ignoring those external factors. It’s about relying on a wealth and depth of experience to create a protective structure that allows your team to execute effectively. I approach an important meeting the same way I handle an emergency situation: by carefully assessing the context, gathering critical data points, and clearly outlining the objective. This ensures my team has all the information they need to contribute meaningfully toward our shared goal. Time is our most valuable currency. By setting a clear direction, I keep the focus on what matters, enabling diverse perspectives to informbut not derailthe final decision. The Power of the Collective Individual skill is essential, but the power of the collective is truly transformative. Every first responder brings their own expertise and intuition, but success comes when these individuals work together in harmony. A single person may perform a critical task, but its the combined effort of all team members that ensures the best possible outcome. For executives, operating in isolation is a recipe for failure. Just like AI algorithms, leadership decisions are only as good as the inputs we apply. To harness the power of the collective, you must value every voiceregardless of volume. Some team members are naturally outspoken, while others hold back critical insights. Effective leaders create spaces that draw out diverse perspectives, whether its proactively calling on a subject matter expert to weigh in or setting up a roundtable discussion to give everyone a chance to chime in. Its not just about making space; its about knowing when a nudge is needed. Getting Comfortable with Change Change has always been a constant in business, but its pace and unpredictability have grown in recent years. Just like in emergency response, where rapid shifts require clear thinking and decisive action, businesses must not only accept change but develop the confidence to navigate it effectively. The leaders who build strong, agile teamsnot just obedient followerswill be the ones who thrive. Its about creating the conditions where teams can perform at their best, even in the most challenging circumstances. I see this firsthand every Monday night when Im on call from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.and it continues to shape my leadership long after the shift ends.
Category:
E-Commerce
When deciding if something is worth the effort, whether youve already exerted yourself or face the prospect of work, changes your calculus. Thats what we found in our new research, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. When you consider a future effort, more work makes the outcome less appealing. But once youve completed the work, more effort makes the outcome seem more valuable. We also discovered that hiding behind this general principle of timing there are individual differences in how future and past effort shapes peoples value for the fruits of their labor. Whats it worth to you? In our experiment, we gave participants a choice between a fixed amount of money and a household itema mugthat they could take home if they exerted some amount of physical effort, roughly equivalent to walking up one, two, or three flights of stairs. This setup allowed us to determine the value each person placed on the effortdid it add to or subtract from the value of the item? For instance, if putting in a little more effort made someone switch their decision and decide to go with the cash instead of the mug, we could tell that they valued the mug plus that amount of effort less than that sum of money. We also manipulated the time aspect of effort. When the effort was in the future, participants decided whether they wanted to go with the cash or get the mug with some effort. When the effort was in the past, participants decided whether they wanted to cash in the mug they had already earned with effort. As we had expected, future effort generally detracted from the value of the mug, but the past effort generally increased it. But these general trends do not tell the whole story. Not everyone responds to effort the same way. Our study also uncovered striking individual differences. Four distinct patterns emerged: For some people, extra effort always subtracted value. Others consistently preferred items with more work. Many showed mixed patterns, where moderate effort increased value but excessive effort decreased it. Some experienced the opposite: initially disliking effort, then finding greater value at higher levels. These changing patterns show that ones relationship with effort isnt simple. For many people, theres a sweet spot: A little effort might make something more valuable, but push too far and the value drops. Its like enjoying a 30-minute workout but dreading a two-hour session, or conversely, feeling that a five-minute workout isnt worth changing clothes for, but a 45-minute session feels satisfying. Our paper offers a mathematical model that accounts for these individual differences by proposing that your mind flexibly computes costs and benefits of effort. Why violate the law of less work? Why should timing even matter for effort? It seems obvious that reason and nature would teach you to always avoid and dislike effort. A hummingbird that prefers a hard-to-get flower over an easy equal alternative might win an A for effort, but, exhausted, would not last long. The cruel world requires resource rationalityoptimal, efficient use of limited physical and mental resources, balancing the benefits of actions with the required effort. That insight is captured by the classic psychological law of less work, basically boiling down to the idea that given equivalent outcomes, individuals prefer easier options. Anything different would seem irrational or, in plain language, stupid. If so, then how come people, and even animals, often prize things that require hard work for no additional payoff? Why is being hard-to-get a route to value? Anyone who has labored hard for anything knows that investing effort makes the final prize sweeter, whether in love, career, sports, or Ikea furniture assembly. Could the answer to this paradox of effort be that in the hummingbird example, the decision is about future effort, and in the Ikea effect, the effort is in the past? Our new findings explain seemingly contradictory phenomena in everyday life. In health care, starting an exercise regimen feels overwhelming when focusing on upcoming workouts, but after establishing the habit, those same exercises become a source of accomplishment. At work, professionals might avoid learning difficult new skills, yet after mastering them, they value their enhanced abilities more because they were challenging to acquire. What still isnt known Sayings like No pain, no gain or Easy come, easy go populate our language and seem fundamental to our culture. But researchers still dont fully understand why some people value effortful options more than others do. Is it physical aptitude, past experiences, a sense of meaning, perception of difficulty as importance or impossibility, moralization of effort, specific cultural beliefs about hard work? We dont know yet. Were now studying how effort shapes different aspects of value: monetary value; hedonic value, as in the pleasure one gets from an item; and the aesthetic value, as in the sense of beauty and artistry. For instance, were investigating how people value artful calligraphy after exerting different amounts of effort to view it. This work may shed light on curious cultural phenomena, like how people value their experience seeing the Mona Lisa after waiting for hours in crowds at the Louvre. These studies could also help researchers design better motivation systems across education, health care and business. Piotr Winkielman is a professor of psychology at the University of California, San Diego. Przemysław Marcowski is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, San Diego. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
As renewable energy gathers steam around the world, the harms of mining its mineral components continue to grow. On the environmental front, for example, theres the destruction of Indonesian rainforests to mine nickel and the draining of precious South American groundwater reserves to obtain lithium. Theres also the human toll, which can be seen in forced displacement and child labor exploitation in the cobalt-rich Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well as violence toward Indigenous people living on nickel-studded lands in the Philippines. The devastation raises the question: Is the world better off just sticking with the status quo? With these factors, is renewable energy and clean technology any better than fossil fuels? Whatever the answer, the comparison must account for the continued and additional coal, oil, and gas use that will happen in the absence of a mineral-powered energy transition. Not only does the status quo involve devastating greenhouse gas emissions that wreak havoc on the whole planet, but it also requires local ecological disruption in the form of fossil fuel extraction, which will continually expand as existing fuel deposits are depleted. Fracking and drilling for oil and gas can cause groundwater contamination, oil spills, and the uncontrolled release of planet-warming methane. And mining for coal, of course, is similarly destructive as other kinds of mining. Nickle mining on Hinatuan Island in Surigao del Norte province, Philippines. [Photo: Erwin Mascarinas/AFP/Getty Images] While theres a lot of room for improvement with metals mining, said Julie Klinger, a mineral supply chains expert at the University of Delaware, look at the devastation that fossil fuel extraction has brought. Indeed, the most mined resource today is coal, with around 8.7 billion tons produced in 2023 alone. We need fossil fuels in such large quantities precisely because they are fuels, continuously shoveled into power plants to generate energy. By contrast, solar panels and wind turbines require a fixed quantity of metals only during the construction phaseand once built, they can produce energy for several decades without additional inputs. Because of this, experts agree that the world will actually see a net decrease in energy-related mining if we replace fossil fuels with metals-powered technologies. In 2023, a team of scientists and Deloitte consultants in the Netherlands projected future metal and coal demand under an ambitious scenario where humanity reaches net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. They found that, despite a more than sixfold increase in demand for energy-related metalsbringing the total up to just over 3 billion tonstotal global ore extraction would decrease by a third because of the decline in coal mining. In any case, mining for energy transition minerals will likely only ever constitute a relatively small proportion of global mining activity. Mines cover less than 0.02 percent of Earths surface, but many of them are for iron and aluminum, which we need in ever-increasing quantities to build the world around us, regardless of where we get our energy. That will dwarf anything thats actually used for the energy transition, said geologist Gawen Jenkin of the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom. Most importantly, perhaps, while fossil fuels can only be burned once, many minerals can in principle be used many times over. The Netherlands study estimates that we could slash energy-related mining demand by an additional third in the 2050 net-zero scenario if we were to massively upscale recycling of EVs, wind turbines, and solar panels. The fundamental issue, said Raphael Deberdt, a socioeconomic mining expert at the Colorado School of Mines, is that our economic system incentivizes as much extraction as possible in order to fuel infinite consumption. But shifts to reduce resource consumptionthink electric buses and trains rather than SUVs, and reusing old solar panels and EV batteries wherever possible, for instanceand a circular economy that makes the best use of every resource would do wonders to ease the burden of mining. There are other actions we can take to further reduce the adverse effects of mineral mining. For example, engineers can substitute materials connected to labor or human rights abuses with ones that can be more responsibly sourced; Tesla, for instance, has begun to equip its electric vehicles with iron-phosphate batteries that are cheaper and dont require cobalt or nickel, which have been linked to environmental and social damage in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Indonesia, respectively. This reflects a broader shift across auto industrieswith manufacturers like Renault and Volkswagen reportedly following suitwhile iron-phosphate batteries are also becoming increasingly popular for general electricity storage. There are also many opportunities to extract minerals from the waste of existing mines that were originally built for different purposes. Research by mining and sustainability expert Tim Werner of the University of Melbourne has estimated that waste from a single Canadian zinc mine could supply several years worth of global demand for indium, which is used in solar cells, and there are already efforts to recover cobalt from old lead mines in Missouri. Nascent attempts to recover critical minerals from ocean water, plant life, and even asteroids have shown promise, though they are not developed enough to displace traditional methods. In short, the mantra reduce, reuse, recyclein precisely that orderretains its importance in an all-renewables world. The more of these changes we adopt, the more luxury well have to choose where and how minerals are mined. This transition needs to happen, Werner said. But we have to be really strategic, really smart, and really conscientious and responsible about where theyre coming from. Katarina Zimmer, Grist This article originally appeared in Grist, a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Sign up for its newsletter here.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] next »