Ohio Senator part of effort to make May National Foster Care Month
WASHINGTON, D.C. (WKBN) – The Senate passed a resolution to make May National Foster Care Month.
Ohio Senator Jon Husted co-sponsored the resolution, which passed the Senate on Thursday.
The legislation brings awareness to the challenges facing children in foster care, and encourages Congress to implement policies to improve their lives and support foster parents.
Husted was adopted out of the foster care system.
'Loving foster families offer the stability and guidance when kids may need it most,' he said. 'I've seen how transformational a child's first years of life can be and strengthening the foster care system gives kids a better chance to achieve their version of the American dream. I'm honored to shine a light on foster families and the kids they love.'
The number of Ohio kids in foster care has continued to increase during the opioid epidemic, outpacing the number of foster families in the state.
It has estimated that half of children in foster care have one or both parents struggling with substance abuse, according to a recent study.
The study shows that Ohio's foster care system serves more than 16,000 children, yet there are only 7,000 licensed foster families.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
31 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Econometer: Should the US ban drug advertising to consumers?
The U.S. is rare among Western nations because it allows pharmaceutical advertising. But a new effort aims to stop it. A bill was introduced in Congress recently that would ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, from TV to social media, to promote their products. Prescription drug advertising employs a lot of people, directly and indirectly. Billions are spent on advertising each year, employing advertising workers, and 24.4% of ad minutes were for prescription drugs across evening news programs on ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and NBC this year through May, according to data from iSpot analyzed by The Wall Street Journal. Proponents of the bill say advertising drives up the cost of prescription goods. Pharmaceutical trade groups have said advertisements serve public health by increasing disease awareness and educating consumers about treatment options. Question:Should the U.S. ban drug advertising to consumers? Economists Alan Gin, University of San Diego YES: Advertising is supposed to give consumers more information about products, but are consumers really in a position to make an informed decision about pharmaceuticals? Those decisions are best left to physicians, who probably have more knowledge about the effectiveness of medications. Consumers can be swayed by slick and repetitive ads into wanting products that might not be the best for them. The money spent on the ads will add to the already high price of the drugs. James Hamilton, UC San Diego NO: Proponents of a ban argue that ads cause people to request unnecessary drugs. But advertisements helped several of my friends learn about options that they didn't know were available. I'm also concerned any time the government dictates what companies are allowed to talk about. It's appropriate to ensure ads do not make inaccurate claims. And doctors should always say no if patients request a prescription that the doctor does not believe is going to help them. Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy YES: Advertising specific drugs leads to overprescribing, higher drug and insurance prices, and creates bad incentives, like promoting the most profitable drugs. Because insurance limits consumer costs, more prescription drugs are purchased than needed or used. If the goal is to share important information, industry groups can promote a range of treatments for a condition, leaving discussions of individual products to medical professionals. Drugs also carry risks that are not easily captured in 30 seconds. Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research NO: Firms do not advertise to raise costs but engage in marketing to inform the public (especially doctors writing prescriptions) of the drug's usefulness. Without marketing, firms would be unable to get information out necessary to make a drug salable in the first place. The drug's value is decided by the marketplace with consumers driving the entire process. Value of advertising is derived from the value consumers place on the drug, not the other way around. Norm Miller, University of San Diego NO: While most physicians try to keep up on the latest drug research, some do not, thus the need for public information about new drugs. What should be mandatory in ads are their efficacy, side effects and potential for addiction, using FDA verified stats. Lies and exaggerations should be illegal. It should also be illegal for drug manufacturers to incentivize or pay doctors for prescribing any drug, and physicians that take such gifts should lose their license. Ray Major, economist YES: Every ad starts with or ends with "ask your doctor if this drug is right for you." Prescription drug advertisement targets consumers hoping they ask their doctor for a specific brand of drug. Consumers are not qualified to self diagnose symptoms and prescribe drugs to themselves based on information from a commercial. Doctors should be prescribing drugs based on a patients' needs and not influenced by patients who have seen an ad for a prescription drug. David Ely, San Diego State University NO: Commercial speech by pharmaceutical companies that is truthful and informative should be protected. A ban on drug advertising goes too far. A better option is enhanced regulation by the FDA and FTC to ensure that the risks and effectiveness of prescription drugs are accurately communicated in advertising to the public. Under a ban, resources would be shifted to increased promotional efforts targeting health care providers so the cost of prescription goods may not decline. Executives Gary London, London Moeder Advisors NO: I am not a big fan of drug advertisements, but unlike cigarette ads, which clearly promoted sickness for generations, at least drugs are lifesaving. The government should not get involved. However, I have never fully understood why pharmaceutical companies promote directly to patients rather than physicians. They complicate medical care. Be that as it may, these advertisements certainly prop up the cable channels, who need the revenue. Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates YES: The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers. Drug ads often downplay the risks, leading to uninformed decisions. Ads can push consumers toward brand-name drugs, even when cheaper alternatives exist. Also, patients may request unnecessary medications, pressuring doctors to prescribe them. Sure, ads can educate, lead to earlier diagnosis, and boost the economy! But let's limit ads during the first few years of release. Phil Blair, Manpower NO: They are a product like any other. With artificial intelligence, clients and patients can educate themselves on various options just like they do with other products. Of course, they should heed their doctors' advice. Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth YES: Drugmakers spent $10 billion on direct-to-consumer ads last year. These costs are ultimately reflected in the world's highest per-capita health care bill, with relatively poor health outcomes. Slick spots encourage viewers to "ask your doctor" for brands even when cheaper generics accomplish the same goal. Treatment decisions should be based on clinical evidence, not marketing budgets. Pharma could shift a fraction of this outreach to physician education so that patients will still learn about therapies from an informed source. Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health YES: Absolutely. The cost of pharmaceuticals has become prohibitive to patients and providers like hospitals, and the huge cost of advertising is wrapped into those costs. While we want informed patients, pharmaceutical education should be handled by patients' physicians, not a jingle on TV. Advertising also can be misleading and increase the cost of drugs to taxpayers - which is why many countries prohibit advertising. Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere NO: While I don't enjoy watching the litany of drug advertisements consistently shown on family programming, I don't support a blanket ban. Instead, drug advertising should follow the model currently allowed to cigarette advertising: prohibit ads on TV and radio but allow other forms of advertising with appropriate limitations and regulations. While raising awareness of available treatments can be beneficial, the current barrage of drug advertising is excessive and likely leads to over prescription and increased health care costs. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Wall Street Journal
31 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
The Trump-Era Rollback of Transgender Rights Is Gaining Steam
Voters in at least 10 states have elected a transgender person to their legislature. A transgender man has argued a case before the Supreme Court. Last year, the first transgender woman was elected to Congress. Transgender people have become visible in ways that were unthinkable five years ago, a development that advocates thought would generate more societal acceptance. And yet, the political and legal tides are shifting in a different direction.
2 hours ago
Supreme Court rejects toy company's push for a quick decision on Trump's tariffs
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a push from an Illinois toy company asking for a quick decision on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. wanted the justices to take up the case soon, rather than let it continue to play out in lower courts. The company argues the tariffs and uncertainty are having a 'massive impact' on businesses around the country and the issue needs swift attention from the nation's highest court. The justices didn't explain their reasoning in the brief order rebuffing the motion to fast-track the issue, but the Supreme Court is typically reluctant to take up cases before lower courts have decided. An appeals court is set to hear the case in late July. The company argues that the Republican president illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law, bypassing Congress. It won an early victory in a lower court, but the order is on hold as an appeals court considers a similar ruling putting a broader block on Trump's tariffs. The appeals court has allowed Trump to continue collecting tariffs under the emergency powers law for now. The Trump administration has defended the tariffs by arguing that the emergency powers law gives the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies and that the country's longtime trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency.
