DONALD TRUMP: THE LEADER OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER – THE PROGRESSIVE NON-PROGRESSIVE ANTI ABORITIONIST LOBBYING FOR ABORTION RIGHTS CONTRADICTORY PRESIDENT OF AMERICA

Trump, The Leader of the Free World (If Women Aren’t Included That Is)

Nov 14, 2024

THE FUTURIST NON-PROGRESSIVE-PROGRESSIVE REPUBLICAN ANTI- ABORITIONIST RAPE ACCUSED SUPPORTING AND ALSO ACCUSED FEMALE ADVOCATE SUPPORTING WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT AND LOBBYING FOR ABORTION RIGHTS TOUCHING THEM ON THE P%$$# CONTRADICTORY PRESIDENT OF AMERICA

Let’s get straight into the facts and talk about why some populations of people in the west, namely low income earning women, don’t trust Donald Trump

During Donald Trump’s presidency, which included the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic—a significant global health crisis—the focus often shifted from policy impacts to sensational public statements and appearances with other world leaders, including Vladimir Putin (Baker & Glasser, 2019). It has been observed that Trump had a more amicable relationship with Putin than previous U.S. presidents (Galeotti, 2018).

While some Americans support his making America great again agenda, others question how he could advocate for America while appearing to align closely with foreign leaders like Putin (Collinson, 2018). Critics argue that if Trump was skeptical of government institutions, it raises questions about his motivations for seeking the presidency and his associations with agencies like the CIA (Miller, 2017).

Trump’s administration was supported by members of the government, which some see as contradictory to the anti-establishment image he projected (Stanley, 2018). This raises concerns when a member of a group does not associate with other members, as it may indicate underlying issues (Smith, 2015).

A closer examination of Trump’s administration reveals policies that some argue reinforced socioeconomic disparities, prioritising the wealthy and reducing support for low-income and vulnerable populations (Leonhardt, 2018). His policy decisions may have widened the gap between rich and poor, limiting opportunities for millions of Americans, especially women and economically disadvantaged individuals (Badger & Quealy, 2018).

This has not gone unnoticed by all Americans. While some demographic groups support Trump’s policies, others are critical of the growing wealth gap (Pew Research Center, 2020). Educational institutions like the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), aim to mitigate socioeconomic disparities through admissions policies that consider a student’s resilience and ability to overcome obstacles (UCLA Undergraduate Admission, n.d.). These measures help admit the best candidates, not just those from affluent backgrounds (Jaschik, 2019).

UCLA recognises that challenges faced by low-income students can build resilience needed to succeed at university, qualities that may not be as prevalent among students from more privileged backgrounds (DeAngelo et al., 2018). Critics of the Trump administration argue that it often disregarded these progressive ideals (Thrush, 2017). This represents a step backward rather than forward. Now, I will outline the policy rollbacks Trump was involved with during his term as president, directly impacting my life in 2018.

SEX CULT PODCAST & BLOG is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. I put alot of work into my writing for you to read in this blog so pleeease support local writers if you have the means to do so thanks! If you dont just subscribe free or share post thanks!

Economic Inequality: A Shift from Gender and Race to Class Divisions

In today’s political sphere, economic class has become a defining line of discrimination, often alongside but increasingly overshadowing race and gender (Piketty, 2014). This does not mean that racial and gender issues have been resolved—will they ever be? However, economic gaps between the rich and poor have widened, and this increase is starting to change how the world is run both politically and socially (Saez & Zucman, 2019). This shift is evident in education, healthcare, and economic opportunity, where wealth talks and the poor populations walk (Stiglitz, 2012).

Economic Gaps Widening and Trump’s Policy Rollbacks

Trump’s policies, rather than addressing the widening wealth gap, often served to increase it (Leonhardt, 2018). For example, proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) aimed to tighten eligibility requirements, which could have reduced food security for low-income American families who rely on this support to meet basic needs (Fadulu, 2018). Additionally, the Trump administration proposed to eliminate the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program and cut federal student loan programs, demonstrating a lack of commitment to making higher education accessible for students (Kreighbaum, 2019).

By limiting government funding and support, Trump’s administration reinforced cycles of poverty, creating barriers to social mobility for those already facing economic hardship (Dynan & Sheiner, 2018). In contrast, institutions like the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) are pushing back against these trends without intention to do so possibly, by recognising emotional intelligence as a factor to consider when admitting students to their school. UCLA’s admissions policy acknowledges systemic barriers by evaluating a student’s background and resilience, aiming to provide an equitable pathway to education for all students, regardless of economic background (UCLA Undergraduate Admission, n.d.). Trump’s policy approach not only failed to level the playing field but actively worked against it by reducing federal aid and resources for the very populations that progressive policies had previously supported (Miller, 2017).

Education as an Avenue for Social Mobility

Education has long been viewed as a key pathway for economic stability, especially for women (World Bank, 2018), under Trump’s administration this time around, and guess what? Women, are going to find it increasingly hard to get education if they are from lower social-economic family again, during this Trump presidency term (Kreighbaum, 2019).

..shocking.

Federal education programs in America that provide grants and loans to poor students, like scholarships, Centrelink or MyGov in Australia, which are constantly under threat also and still suffer from a lot of discrimination as to who they go to also (Mitchell, Leachman, & Masterson, 2017). The equivalent in America however under Trump will be cut and increased restrictions put on them (Kreighbaum, 2019). And rich kids won’t suffer, but guess who will (Baum & Johnson, 2015)?

By reducing access to government assistance, Trump’s policies create greater barriers for students seeking higher education, effectively privileging rich kids who can afford tuition without government assistance (Dynarski, 2018). This approach contradicts the principles of institutions like UCLA, where admissions policies strive to consider resilience in their applicant’s history, usually through their fight through a diverse and turbulent childhood, and a whole host of problems rich kids maybe never have to deal with (UCLA Undergraduate Admission, n.d.).

Whether this is an advantage or disadvantage is up for question. Rich kid ignorance is not exactly something we are all lining up to acquire, Buddhism and religion would have me believe otherwise.

..unless it comes with the riches that is).

Seemingly, under a Trump administration, the disparity between rich and poor will continue to widen, erasing the class system and further benefiting those who need it the least (Saez & Zucman, 2019). This is not looking good people.

Women’s Health and Rights Under Trump: A Regressive Policy Approach

Trump’s presidency also saw numerous policies that ignore women’s rights, and even make a mockery of them. Including women’s health, unfortunately. Particularly, for low-income women who depend on federal programs for essential services, like me. Through changes to American government policy, Title X, restrictions on birth control, and a lack of support for women’s healthcare services in the government, Trump’s administration created additional challenges for women seeking autonomy over their health and reproductive choices.

Title X Funding Cuts and the Suspiciously Named, “Gag” Rule

Title X, a American federal program that funds family planning services, provided low-cost reproductive health services to families, including abortions, birth control, STI testing, and cancer screenings for millions of low-income women (Office of Population Affairs, n.d.). In 2019, the Trump administration implemented a “gag rule” (weird name for a reproductive policy), that prohibited clinics receiving Title X funds from providing or even discussing abortion services with their patients (Rabin, 2019).

This led to significant changes in how clinics operated, with many, including Planned Parenthood, a popular low income choice to receive these health services, that is safe for getting abortions, instead now choosing to withdraw from the program rather than comply with restrictions that limited their ability to offer comprehensive care to low-income abortion seekers (Planned Parenthood, 2019). Abortions in Australia, costing around $500 (give or take) cash up front, I assume around the same for Americans.

Healthcare for pregnant women through the nine months they carry a child, costs a lot more, which these clinics are also relied upon as well.

As a result, thousands of women lost access to affordable reproductive healthcare, disproportionately affecting those in rural areas and low-income communities with fewer healthcare alternatives (Freking, 2019). This is extremely alarming news, and a much bigger problem than “toxic masculinity.”

The Guttmacher Institute reported that nearly 1,000 clinics lost Title X funding under Trump and his “gag reflex….I mean rule” order policy. Due to “the gag,” this further reduced health services availability to women in communities where affordable healthcare is already limited, making it almost non-existent today (Hasstedt, 2020). This policy change, not only limited women’s access to reproductive health but highlighted Trump’s administration as uninterested in the health needs of this populaton that need these female health and wellbeing services (Nash et al., 2020).

SESTA-FOSTA and Its Consequences for Sex Workers

On another topic, on the same day this policy was enforced by Trump in America, it made it’s way all the way to St Kilda in Melbourne, to where I was living at the time, and seriously fucked my life up. In the year 2018 I believe, by signing this SESTA-FOSTA, he put the lives of 80% of consensual sex workers In the west at serious risk (Wagner & Koo, 2018). How could I forget, it was not very fun…

The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) and Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), on the surface appeared to be supporting women who are victims of sex trafficking (however this is not a purely a female policy, obviously). Enacted in 2018, intended to eliminate human trafficking, it didn’t, but instead unintentionally (or so they will have you believe) had severe consequences for consensual sex workers, like me (Blunt & Wolf, 2020). SESTA-FOSTA, made it illegal for websites to host content that could be interpreted as promoting or facilitating sex work ALL TOGETHER (Cunningham et al., 2019).

This meant the main websites I used in Melbourne to find clients and vice versa were ripped from me on a day I really didn’t have the means to have them ripped from me on. I ended up in a verily dangerous, to most people’s measure, circumstance which I navigated through very well, due to my diverse and obstacle fighting background which I assume could get me admission to UCLA, if I told them this particular story and how I managed to get out of it un-raped or murdered.

Online platforms, such as Backpage and Craigslist were instantly banned globally, not just in America, which meant escorts in Melbourne were instantly effected by it (Van der Meulen, 2019). At the time we only used Backpage which was banned, leaving the state of escorting devastated, and unable to find work. On that day, I could not post on Backpage, and I was refreshing over and over, and checking my internet connection to no avail. The fear came over me suddenly as a friend told me the news.

Locanto.com however, always having been a more problematic website to find work through, was not banned, so all the sex traffickers just changed and went on there instead.

Great policy; well thought out guys. *claps*

This legislation drove many sex workers off safer, controlled online platforms and forced them into more dangerous street-based or underground work environments (Platt et al., 2020). I was one night of not working away from hitting the street, those girls were getting more work than us online escorts were that week! But this further demonstrates Trump’s continuing actions to harm females globally. He harmed a lot of us that week, 70-80% of sex workers globally being female (UNAIDS, 2014).

Studies, such as those published in the Anti-Trafficking Review, found that SESTA-FOSTA led to an increase in violence against sex workers who lost the ability to screen clients online that month and we lost the ability to choose who we want as clients as all, being so desperate for work (McDonald, 2019). This is very dangerous. This policy changed the industry forever and it has been on a steep decline ever since in Melbourne. For those who think American politics doesn’t effect us, we are now a global community, Trump becoming president 100% can affect us. Donald Trump negatively, dangerously, potentially fatally and directly effected my life with this flippant and meaningless policy in 2018 (Weitzer, 2020).

This policy, while presented as an anti-trafficking measure, failed to address trafficking directly and instead targeted legal, consensual sex workers, making our jobs a lot harder than they already can be (Smith, 2018). Sex work in an extremely multi-faceted and high pressured job, requiring many different skill sets, some skill sets you would never think that we would need, we require to do our jobs competently. It takes around four years approximately, longer than it takes to get a bachelor’s degree at University (three years), to become completely competent at being a sex worker. University has a high first year dropout rate due to the pressure it takes to finish each semester, well similarly, so does sex work. Perspective.

Impact of Supreme Court Appointments on Women’s Rights

Perhaps the most far-reaching legacy of Trump’s presidency concerning women’s rights is his appointment of three conservative justices to the Supreme Court—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—culminating in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Liptak, 2022). This decision has returned abortion law reform over to the responsibility of individual American states, resulting in most states deeming the surgery illegal, of course (Guttmacher Institute, 2023). The penally holding a maximum jail sentence, if caught receiving or giving one, or even having one in another state and coming back to the state it is illegal in, is illegal (Sneed, 2022).

Seriously?

This makes it nearly impossible for women in certain states in America to access safe and legal abortions without having to plan some sort of illegal heist to get through, in order to get one without getting caught. Hoping not to be in jail by the end of it all (Jones et al., 2022). As if getting an abortion wasn’t hard enough on its own.

This review and roll-back of America’s previous reproductive right laws has significant implications for women’s health in America. Especially, and this will come at no shock, to low-income and less privileged communities.

The decision has also been responsible for creating a very serious and chilling effect on the reproductive healthcare system also in America, as mentioned earlier in this article. Clinic’s now scaling back their services, mostly contraceptive and reproductive aka women’s health. Due to legal uncertainties, and the roll-back of the policy Title X by the Trump administration is included in this tragedy (KFF, 2022).

For many women, this development represents a major setback in their ability to make many decisions, not just healthcare decisions. (Rosenbaum & Wentworth, 2020). Women must now consider where they live in America also, in direct consequence to this abortion law roll-back (Carpentier, 2022). If an American woman ever fears of needing an abortion one day, which most do, they better be living in a state that allows it, in order to avoid a messy situation that these anti-abortion policies get them into (Bearak et al., 2022). This effectively is taking away a women’s right to choose, is a very serious issue and one that accumulated not nearly as much public scrutiny as these 30 something males and their “suicide issues” or “masculinity issues (Nash et al., 2022).” However, this is not surprising, and this is why no one speaks about it, because the silencing that goes on when it comes to women’s rights these days is so prevalent and obvious, who wants to be the boring one to point it out?

There are some thankfully, and I will always be one of them. No doubt I will get negative feedback for doing so, but I can handle it.

The Role of Shock Tactics and Sensationalism Over Policy Substance

Trump’s presidency was marked by a reliance on provocative language and shock tactics that often-diverted attention from substantive policy impacts (Sides, Tesler, & Vavreck, 2018). His tendency to make inflammatory statements and engage in sensational rhetoric created an emotional connection with voters but often masked the harm his policies inflicted, particularly on women and low-income communities (Ott, 2017).

Provocative Rhetoric as a Distraction

Trump’s use of shock value in his speeches and social media presence served to distract the public and media from examining the real-world impacts of his policies (Tulis, 2017). By focusing on controversial statements, Trump deflected attention from policy decisions that hurt women’s rights, access to healthcare, and economic opportunity (Griffin, 2019). For instance, inflammatory comments about his political opponents or divisive social issues dominated the news cycle, while policy changes that impacted millions of lives often went unexamined (Klein, 2017).

Impact on Public Perception and Voting Behaviour:

This reliance on sensationalism over substance influenced public perception, leading many voters to support Trump based on personality rather than policy (Hahl, Kim, & Zuckerman Sivan, 2018). Had the focus been on his actual policy record, particularly concerning women’s rights and economic equity, it’s likely that many voters—especially women—might have reconsidered their support (Schaffner, MacWilliams, & Nteta, 2018). In many ways, voting for Trump can be seen as voting against one’s own interests, particularly for those affected by his restrictive healthcare policies and education funding cuts (Frank, 2017).

The Importance of Progressive Policy and Equity

In conclusion, Trump’s administration underscored the importance of progressive policies that seek to promote equity and fairness. Programs like UCLA’s admissions policy demonstrate the power of inclusive approaches that account for systemic barriers, allowing disadvantaged individuals a fair chance at success. In contrast, Trump’s policies reinforced existing inequalities, making it harder for low-income individuals and women to access necessary healthcare, education, and economic opportunities.

True social progress requires policies that address women’s rights at its root, providing support for those facing structural barriers and ensuring that resources are accessible to all. By cutting funding for critical services and enacting policies that limited women’s rights, Trump’s administration actively hindered progress toward a more equitable society. Moving forward, achieving genuine equity demands a shift away from shock tactics and sensationalism and toward a commitment to policies that uplift and support vulnerable populations.

This draft addresses the full scope of Trump’s policies in relation to equity, particularly through the lens of economic and social inequality, and provides a strong foundation for further expansion or supporting research.

Final Thoughts

A Trump government was never going to benefit someone like me, will never and has never. Why his supporters are failing to recognise this is complete misogyny. It worries me that the young male population are so easily led astray by Trump’s propaganda, they are our future, and I fear them looking to Donald Trump as a mentor but his seems to be the case. I don’t like writing about the government much because there is nothing I can directly do to change it, especially at this point.

My voice is very seldom going to be listened to on this or any matter. However, where possible and important to do so, I will voice the facts and the concerns that women in their 30’s should be focussing on, because these issues, especially women’s health issues, will directly affect one day that is a certainty. Especially going into the menopause years which can start at 30 years for a woman.

Our right to choose is being re-taken away from us. Trump rolled back a few policies, and you might say big deal, but along with rolling back these policies was a rolling back a woman’s right to choose, which only just got given back to us after 100 thousand years in the 1960’s. Have we come too far to allow them to reverse the work feminism has done to get us here, since then? Is it time to trash equality and start looking at alternative methods of empowerment?

Too much is on the line for women, to do nothing, is my only final thought.

Verity..

References

Badger, E., & Quealy, K. (2018). Income Inequality and the Trump Tax Cuts. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/28/upshot/income-inequality-tax-cuts-rich.html

Baker, P., & Glasser, S. (2019). Trump and Putin: A Relationship and Its Implications. The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/04/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war

Baum, S., & Johnson, M. (2015). Student Debt: Who Borrows Most? Urban Institute. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/65356/2000191-Student-Debt-Who-Borrows-Most.pdf

Bearak, J., Jones, R. K., & Nash, E. (2022). State Abortion Bans Will Harm Women and Families. Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/06/state-abortion-bans-will-harm-women-and-families

Blunt, D., & Wolf, A. (2020). Erased: The impact of FOSTA-SESTA and the removal of Backpage on sex workers. Anti-Trafficking Review, (14), 117–121. Retrieved from https://www.antitraffickingreview.org/index.php/atrjournal/article/view/452/382

Carpentier, N. (2022). Silencing Women’s Voices: The Impact of the Overturning of Roe v. Wade on Public Discourse. Journal of Social Issues, 78(3), 567–583.

Collinson, S. (2018). Trump’s Embrace of Putin Meets With Widespread Criticism. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-summit/index.html

Cunningham, S., DeAngelo, G., & Tripp, J. (2019). Craigslist’s effect on violence against women. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2790612

DeAngelo, L., Franke, R., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J., & Tran, S. (2011). Completing College: Assessing Graduation Rates at Four-Year Institutions. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Retrieved from https://heri.ucla.edu/nih/downloads/CompletingCollege2011.pdf

Dynan, K., & Sheiner, L. (2018). GDP as a Measure of Economic Well-being. Hutchins Center Working Paper #43. Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/WP43-8.23.18.pdf

Dynarski, S. (2018). The Gap Between the Haves and Have-Nots of Education. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/business/college-tuition-trump-budget.html

Fadulu, L. (2018). The Trump Administration Moves to Limit Food Stamp Eligibility. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/trump-administration-moves-limit-food-stamp-eligibility/578767/

Federal Election Commission. (2020). Official 2020 Presidential Election Results. Retrieved from https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2020presgeresults.pdf

Frank, T. (2017). What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. Henry Holt and Company.

Galeotti, M. (2018). Putin and Trump: The Meaning of Their Relationship. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/16/putin-and-trump-the-meaning-of-their-relationship/

Griffin, R. (2019). Trump’s Rhetoric as a Distraction from Policy Impacts. Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/08/26/trumps-rhetoric-as-a-distraction-from-policy-impacts/

Guttmacher Institute. (2023). State Abortion Policies After Roe v. Wade Overturned. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws

Hahl, O., Kim, M., & Zuckerman Sivan, E. (2018). The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue: Proclaiming the Deeper Truth about Political Illegitimacy. American Sociological Review, 83(1), 1–33.

Jaschik, S. (2019). UCLA’s Holistic Admissions Approach. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/05/13/ucla-uses-holistic-admissions-approach-increase-diversity

Jones, R. K., Philbin, J., & Kirstein, M. (2022). Travel Distance to Nearest Abortion Facility After Roe Overturned. JAMA Network Open, 5(8), e2227459.

KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). (2022). The Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision on Abortion. Retrieved from https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/the-implications-of-the-supreme-courts-decision-on-abortion/

Klein, E. (2017). The Media Never Cared About Trump’s Policies. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14398450/trump-policies-media

Kreighbaum, A. (2019). Trump Administration Again Proposes Deep Cuts to Student Aid. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/03/12/trump-administration-again-proposes-deep-cuts-student-aid

Leonhardt, D. (2018a). Trump Tries to Kill the New Deal. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/opinion/trump-new-deal.html

Leonhardt, D. (2018b). Trump’s Policies and Economic Inequality. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/18/opinion/trump-economy-inequality.html

Liptak, A. (2022). Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade After Nearly 50 Years. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/roe-wade-overturned-supreme-court.html

McDonald, S. (2019). The SESTA-FOSTA impact on sex workers. Anti-Trafficking Review, (14), 172–176. Retrieved from https://www.antitraffickingreview.org/index.php/atrjournal/article/view/455/385

Miller, G. (2017). Trump’s War With U.S. Intelligence Agencies. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-war-with-us-intelligence-agencies/2017/01/11/5c16d4ce-d813-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html

Miller, K. (2017). How Trump’s Budget Would Impact Low-Income Housing and Community Development Programs. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trumps-budget-affect-low-income-housing-community-development-programs/

Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., & Masterson, K. (2017). A Lost Decade in Higher Education Funding. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-decade-in-higher-education-funding

Nash, E., Cross, L., & Donovan, M. K. (2022). Consequences of the Overturn of Roe v. Wade. Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/2022/07/consequences-overturn-roe-v-wade

Ott, B. L. (2017). The Age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the Politics of Debasement. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 34(1), 59–68.

Pew Research Center. (2020). Trends in Income and Wealth Inequality. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.

Platt, L., Grenfell, P., Meiksin, R., Elmes, J., Sherman, S. G., Sanders, T., & Bonell, C. (2020). Associations between sex work laws and sex workers’ health: A systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies. PLoS Medicine, 15(12), e1002680. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002680

Rosenbaum, S., & Wentworth, D. (2020). The Trump Administration’s Domestic Gag Rule. Health Affairs, 39(6), 1015–1018.

Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2019). The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay. W.W. Norton & Company.

Schaffner, B. F., MacWilliams, M., & Nteta, T. (2018). Understanding White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President: The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism. Political Science Quarterly, 133(1), 9–34.

Sides, J., Tesler, M., & Vavreck, L. (2018). Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America. Princeton University Press.

Smith, J. (2015). The Effects of Social Estrangement in Group Dynamics. Journal of Social Psychology, 155(3), 233–248.

Smith, M. D. (2018). The Unintended Consequences of the FOSTA-SESTA Act. Harvard Law & Policy Review. Retrieved from https://harvardlpr.com/2018/07/27/the-unintended-consequences-of-the-fosta-sesta-act/

Sneed, T. (2022). Some States Target Abortion Access Across State Lines. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/01/politics/abortion-access-state-lines/index.html

Stanley, J. (2018). How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. Random House.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future. W.W. Norton & Company.

Thrush, G. (2017). Trump’s Policies Clash With Progressive Ideals. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/us/politics/donald-trump-policies-progressive-ideals.html

Tulis, J. K. (2017). The Rhetorical Presidency in Retrospect. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 47(2), 342–352.

UCLA Undergraduate Admission. (n.d.). Mission and Values. Retrieved from https://admission.ucla.edu/mission-and-values

UNAIDS. (2014). The Gap Report. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Retrieved from https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/UNAIDS_Gap_report_en.pdf

Van der Meulen, E. (2019). The harms of Canada’s sex work laws: Evaluating Canada’s sex work legislation. Anti-Trafficking Review, (14), 71–86. Retrieved from https://www.antitraffickingreview.org/index.php/atrjournal/article/view/449/379

Wagner, K., & Koo, C. (2018). Trump Signs Controversial Sex Trafficking Bill into Law, Enabling States and Victims to Pursue Websites. Recode. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2018/4/11/17225444/sex-trafficking-bill-fosta-sesta-backpage-trump-law

Weitzer, R. (2020). The campaign against sex work in the United States: A successful moral crusade. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 17(3), 399–414. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-019-00404-1