This election cycle, as always, the H*yas for Choice executive board sent all candidates who launched their campaign at the beginning of the election cycle a questionnaire detailing our policy goals for the next academic year and beyond. Below are our final grades for the candidates. Attached at the bottom of this post is a detailed guide to our grading.
Garet and Habon – A-
H*yas for Choice was impressed by Garet and Habon’s initial platform and responses to our more specific questions. We were particularly enthused by their demonstrated understanding of issues at the Student Health Center and support of university funding for free and anonymous STI screening. Additionally, their research on the implications of ACA repeal and commitment to pressuring Georgetown University to maintaining current health care standards was evident in their platform and in their response to our questions.
Our primary concerns, although few, are with their lack of public support for free menstrual hygiene products. Unlike other candidates, who pursued informational meetings, we did not have the opportunity to meet with Garet and Habon to share our institutional knowledge, giving us some concern about our continued working relationship with GUSA. Therefore, we give Garet and Habon a grade of A-.
Kamar and Jessica – B+
H*yas for Choice was impressed with Kamar and Jessica’s willingness to learn about ongoing issues for students at the Student Health Center, roadblocks to the implementation of STI testing, and the limitations unrecognized groups experience. In particular, HFC was enthusiastic about their plan to appoint a two different GUSA members to handle Greek life issues and other unrecognized group issues. Additionally, Kamar and Jessica shared specific, substantial plans to institutionalize access to free menstrual hygiene products on campus.
HFC’s gravest concern with Kamar and Jessica’s campaign is their perceived reticience to aggressively advocate for a continuation of the limited contraception coverage offered by student health insurance and the Student Health Center, should a repeal or alteration of the ACA remove Georgetown’s mandate to cover these services. Additionally, Kamar and Jessica want to focus on external funding for free and anonymous STI testing, rather than pushing for institutionalized university funding. While HFC supports this policy in the short term, we believe GUSA’s unique relationship with the university administration gives them greater leverage to push for university funding. Therefore, we give Kamar and Jessica a grade of B+.
John and Nick – C+
H*yas for Choice was pleased by John and Nick’s unequivocal support for contraception coverage on student health insurance and at the Student Health Center regardless of changes to the Affordable Care Act. Further, HFC is intrigued and cautiously optimistic regarding their newly proposed policy pooling university students’ health insurance together across the country.
However, after meeting with John and Nick, H*yas for Choice still has severe reservations regarding their support for some of HFC’s policy goals. Fundamentally, the Matthews/Matz campaign emphasizes reducing the size of GUSA and cutting university costs. HFC fears this – admittedly admirable – mindset may come at the price of achieving some of our goals that also aim to make Georgetown an affordable option for students, specifically free menstrual hygiene products. Additionally, the adversarial nature of John and Nick’s initial rollout of their student health policies after H*yas for Choice released our grades last week leaves HFC members concerned a proactive, healthy working relationship may not be as easily attained as with other candidates, and we give them a grade of C+.
Click here for the responses from Garet and Habon, Kamar and Jessica, and HFC’s grades.
Click here for the responses from John and Nick and HFC’s grades.