Tell us how Pennsylvania's opioid crisis has changed you, your family, your community, and more
Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit newsroom producing investigative and public-service journalism that holds power to account and drives positive change in Pennsylvania. Sign up for our free newsletters.
Ed Mahon reported this story while participating in the USC Annenberg Center for Health Journalism's 2024 Data Fellowship and received engagement mentoring and funding.
HARRISBURG — A little over two years ago, I had a video call with a small group of mothers whose families were all deeply affected by the opioid crisis. Three had a child die from a drug overdose. All of them were frustrated with the rollout of opioid settlement money and how people in power were making decisions.
That conversation has stayed with me as I've explored debates about the best way to spend potentially billions of settlement dollars in Pennsylvania, revealed legal concerns over secretive state decisions, and created tools to make the money easier to follow. I've also tried to make sure our coverage shines a light on the perspectives of people who have firsthand experience of the epidemic's devastating impact. You can expect more of that approach, plus some new techniques, in the coming months as we seek to better understand the issue and explore solutions.
We're particularly focused on issues affecting children and families — whether it's grandparents raising children whose parents have died, the effectiveness of programs that aim to prevent illicit drug use, or the impact of the crisis on county offices that are responsible for investigating and assessing allegations of child abuse and neglect.
We're exploring these and other issues, and we need your help. Using the form below, please share your experiences and perspectives. Your input will inform our ongoing reporting and help as we plan a live event in April on this important topic.At Spotlight PA, we've been pursuing these recent opioid settlement stories as part of a data fellowship through the USC Annenberg Center for Health Journalism.
The program offered me four days of in-person training, as well as ongoing support and mentorship. It helped me launch a first-of-its-kind database in November that makes it easier to track opioid settlement money in Pennsylvania. You can search for keywords such as 'syringe,' 'police,' and 'jail' to get a better understanding of what local communities are prioritizing.
Ryan Costello, a former Republican U.S. representative from the Philadelphia suburbs, used the database multiple times in a column as he criticized what he considered misuses of settlement funds. Cathleen Palm, a child protection advocate, had suggestions for items to search for in the database — 'infant,' 'child,' or even 'soccer.' I've heard from others across the state who reached out to their local officials after having concerns about spending decisions they found in the database.
We have more plans to broaden our reach. Over the past few months, Spotlight PA Events Coordinator Yaasmeen Piper and I have been working closely with the Center for Health Journalism's national engagement editor, Teena Apeles, on ways we can expand who we're reaching with our stories.
I've also been working to organize listening sessions, and we're planning a larger in-person event. The form above will help those engagement efforts.
'Engagement is journalism,' reads a guide from the Center for Health Journalism. 'It is journalism that explicitly provides community members with avenues to participate in, contribute to or shape the reporting prior to publication. Engagement can also involve decision-makers in new and creative ways.'
Since November, we've been including a comment box in our settlement stories that asks for reader feedback. So far, we've received about 20 responses to those prompts, plus we've connected with people in other ways. At least one person wanted the money to go to drug treatment centers. Another suggested using the funds for nonprofit counseling facilities, and another highlighted the importance of teen prevention programs. Some emphasized the importance of having a transparent process and public input.
If you have thoughts on how opioid settlement money should be used or how we can better engage with people across the state, I always want to hear them. You can connect with me directly at emahon@spotlightpa.org or at 717-421-2518. I'll also be reviewing every response in the form above.
If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Republican representative's ectopic pregnancy clashes with Florida abortion law
A Florida Republican congresswoman is blaming fearmongering on the left for the reluctance of hospital staff to give her the drugs she needed to end an ectopic pregnancy that threatened her life. Kat Cammack went to the emergency room in May 2024 where it was estimated she was five weeks into an ectopic pregnancy, there was no heartbeat and her life was at risk. Doctors determined she needed a shot of methotrexate to help expel her pregnancy but since Florida's six week abortion ban had just taken effect medical staff were worried about losing their licenses or going to jail if they did. Cammack looked up the state law on her phone to show staff and even attempted to contact the governor's office. Hours later, doctors eventually agreed to give her the medication. Related: Women and men diverge more than ever on support for abortion rights, poll shows But Cammack, who opposes abortion and co-chairs the House pro-life caucus, told the Wall Street Journal she blames messaging from pro-abortion groups for delaying her treatment, which is not banned under Florida's restrictive statutes, who have created fear of criminal charges. Over a year later and once again pregnant and due to give birth soon, Cammack says the politics of the incident have stuck with her. 'It was absolute fearmongering at its worst,' Cammack told the publication, but acknowledged that abortion rights groups might interpret her experience differently and blame Republican-led, restrictive anti-abortion laws for the issue. 'There will be some comments like, 'Well, thank God we have abortion services,' even though what I went through wasn't an abortion,' she told the outlet. Florida's strict abortion ban, which took effect on 1 May 2024, makes abortions illegal after six weeks, when most people aren't even aware yet that they are pregnant. After months in which medical staff were concerned that the law's wording made emergency procedures illegal, the state's healthcare agency issued official guidance to 'address misinformation' on permitting an abortion in instances where the pregnant person's life and health are in danger. Cammack said she hoped that going public with her experience would help opposing political groups find common ground. Related: Democrats introduce bill that aims to protect reproductive health data 'I would stand with any woman – Republican or Democrat – and fight for them to be able to get care in a situation where they are experiencing a miscarriage and an ectopic' pregnancy, she said. Abortion rights activists say the law created problems. Florida regulators say ectopic pregnancies aren't abortions and are exempt from restrictions, but Molly Duane, with the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the Wall Street Journal the law doesn't define ectopic pregnancy, which can be difficult to diagnose. Alison Haddock, the president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, told the outlet care in early pregnancy is a 'medically complicated space' and that doctors in abortion-restricted states worry 'whether their clinical judgment will stand should there be any prosecution'.
11 hours ago
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018. She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015.
Hamilton Spectator
17 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments? The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018 . She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
