For the first time in the history of the U.S. military, women will be allowed to serve in combat alongside their male counterparts without any gender-based discrimination. Outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta made the historic announcement last Thursday, effectively lifting the ban on women serving in ground combat roles. By rescinding the ban, the military is taking a crucial and long-awaited step to align itself with core American ideals of equality. Furthermore, a fully inclusive military will allow for the most talented service members to be recruited without taking their gender into account, thereby improving the quality of the military.

Historically, the contributions of the women in the U.S. military have been devalued by an institutionalized gender bias against them. The specific ban that is being rescinded was established in 1994 restricting women from serving on the frontlines of the battlefield.  Not only did this prevent capable women from serving their country to their fullest capacity, but the lack of battlefield experience also inhibited women from rising up the ranks in the military to the same degree as men.

However, particularly over the last 10 years of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, women have proven their value time and time again. Although they weren’t officially allowed to serve in combat roles, the reality of the battlefield in these theaters of war led to women often being drawn into combat. Their performance in these situations convinced Secretary of Defense Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey, that there was no longer any reason to proscribe women from serving in these roles.

In the past few days most people have welcomed the change. However, a few have continued to speak out against women in combat. Among the opposition is Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who said that the committee might “introduce legislation to stop any changes we believe to be detrimental to our fighting forces and their capabilities.”  Those that oppose the ban have echoed the Senator’s sentiment, suggesting that any gains in equality in the military would be overshadowed by a decrease in effectiveness. Although the transition to opening more high-level roles to women will surely not come without any obstacles, the opposition’s argument is baseless because the evaluation for these new positions will be gender neutral. Thus women and men will be held to the same standards.

All the branches of the military will proceed in developing plans to phase in women by May 15 of this year. Although the initial stages of this new era of equality in the military surely won’t be free of unforeseen consequences, overall we should welcome this change as one that will not only allow our military to realize the full potential of its members, but also to achieve a level of equality that reflects the ideals of our country.

The tragedy of the Sandy Hook massacre not only opened American eyes to policy and social issues affecting our nation, but it also illuminated some of the shoddy inner workings of the mechanism that shared this information with us in the first place: the media.

Through news websites, Twitter, Facebook and other networks, the American public knew of the events occurring in Newtown, Conn. just minutes after they began. And as time passed and more interest was garnered, questions were raised. Why is this happening? Who is doing this? What is happening to these people? Ours is an easily intrigued and interested culture. It is in our nature to raise questions about events that shock and disturb us.

Thankfully, our media outlets are able to satiate our hunger for information. But sharing the news is not always an act of altruism — information sharing is a for-profit industry. And it is through the media’s overwhelming desire for page views that we, the intrigued public, bear witness to unethical measures. In the hours after the shooting, journalists and reporters flocked to the elementary school. While some interviewed police officers and respondents to the shooting, others sought the input of children.

Consulting kids, many of whom were traumatized by the events that occurred at Sandy Hook, is no display of journalistic integrity. It is a cruel and invasive act that only disrupts a community, and disruption is the last thing needed by the residents of Newtown. There is a fine line between reporting on an event and dealing more damage after tragedy strikes a community. If the success of your report depends on a statement from a child, perhaps your report needs some work.

When it comes to modern journalism, it is often said that “if it bleeds, it leads.” That is, tragic stories with extreme details attract the most viewers, regardless of whether or not those details were obtained ethically. As empathetic people, we tune in to certain stories just to see how much “bleeding” there really is. Stories like Newtown provoke ethical dilemmas for journalists. How can they maintain their duty to inform the public without manipulating the emotions of the affected and the consumers? Just like it is unethical to violate the privacy of children for a headline, it is wrong to intrude upon a community to obtain sensational, violent details. Likewise, the media should not attack consumers’ emotions with violent reports for the sake of profit.

Amidst tragedy in places like Newtown, it often becomes easy to forget the community itself. But despite the policy issues these horrific events bring to the table, it is wrong to define a thriving town by a political debate or the media’s fascination. The phrase “school shooting” is not a pleasant one to have in my vernacular, but it is preferable to “pulling a Columbine” — an inconsiderate statement that disregards the people involved in this tragedy.

Shootings like that at Sandy Hook bring many important topics up for discussion — topics I believe are worth discussing. But among the significance of these issues remains the need for respect from the media. One way to help the problem is to shrink the already massive reporting force. The White House provides news to the public with smaller press pools that report back to a collective source, as opposed to sending hordes of eager journalists to an event. Perhaps this sort of organization is what the popular media needs. Not only would it reduce the amount of intrusion suffered by a grieving community, but also it would provide more condensed and concise, rather than sensationalized, reports.

Most importantly, the media must stop abusing the well-being of individuals. People should be treated as people, not commodities for reporters to snatch in hopes of getting an eye-catching headline. That especially includes children who have been affected by tragedy, individuals who should be left to heal after an event rather than continuously reminded of it. In journalism, sometimes less is more.

While it will take time for the entire system to change, I hope that the discourse of media ethics serves as a wake-up call to journalists, both successful and aspiring. Getting thousands of views on a news segment is gratifying, but the first priority should be the ethical and proper treatment of others, not profit. The media is an important part of a democratic society, and as such, it should work with and for the people, not against it.

On Saturday, Jan. 26, it became official: It is now illegal to unlock your smartphone.

Unlocking a smartphone frees it from the current carrier’s network, and enables it to communicate with other networks.

This law oversteps governmental boundaries and doesn’t do much else but generate fear. The maximum fine for first-time offenders is $500,000 and/or up to five years in prison. For repeat offenders, the maximum penalty increases to $1 million and/or up to 10 years in prison.

To this, we must say, “wha-huh?”

It’s important to know unlocking a smartphone and rooting one are two different things. Before you give Techy-Tom flak for rooting his phone, be advised he’s still technically not breaking the law.

Rooting — also known as jailbreaking — a phone grants the owner administrative access on a device he or she paid for. Honestly, everyone should have administrative rights over their property.

When a phone is rooted, the owner has the ability to clean out all the bloatware cellular providers load onto it, which generally increases the phone’s response time. It also allows the owner to install advertisement blocking in apps, and install other applications that may have not been previously available. There are other, more technical applications a rooted phone can do. Unless you’re familiar with what you’re doing, however, it’s probably best to steer clear of overclocking (which increases the power that runs through the CPU to speed up the device) or tethering (which basically turns your phone into a router).

Though rooting a smartphone is technical work, unlocking it is an advanced step only the most comfortable and knowledgeable should perform.

This law now locks customers in with a specific carrier. It could also hinder providers marketing specifically to those with unlocked phones looking to switch. It’s unclear how this will affect T-Mobile’s “bring in your own phone” campaign.

Other than catching and penalizing the masterminds who dissect a phone’s software in order to unlock it and release the code and instructions for the rest of us, this law probably won’t affect many average users.

Hacking and piracy has rampantly increased as our understanding of different technologies advances. It’s no wonder why the “victims” — like media, entertainment and government agencies — would make a fuss and demand government action. This law, however, doesn’t make sense.

There are places that sell unlocked phones. Paying full price, as opposed to the discount prices packaged with a contract, you can legally purchase an unlocked phone. Some carriers, like AT&T, will unlock a phone once the contract expires.

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if you want to legally unlock your phone you must first ask for permission from your carrier. Frankly, this is bologna. It’s like asking your mom for permission to stay up late after you’ve moved out.

Once we’ve purchased something, it is ours. Cell phones are no exception. We should have the freedom to do whatever floats our boat, because it’s our property. If we want to drop it off a building just to see how it shatters, that’s our prerogative. If we want to root or unlock our phone, that too, is our prerogative.

If you decide to root your phone, make sure you do your research. Don’t blame us if you brick it.

We don’t advise you break this law. If you do, though, we won’t be the ones to rat you out.

Irish coach Brian Kelly publicly defended former linebacker Manti Te’o on Tuesday in the aftermath of the Jan. 16 report that revealed Lennay Kekua, Te’o’s purported girlfriend, to be a hoax.

Kelly said the timeline included in University President Fr. John Jenkins’ letter to University officials matched what he remembered.

“When I looked at it, that was all in line with my recollection of getting a phone call from Manti on [Dec.] 26 [when Te’o supposedly told Kelly and defensive coordinator Bob Diaco about the ordeal],” Kelly said. “Everything from there kind of followed the time line that had been set-up.

“So everything that [Te’o] told me, every little thing that’s come out of the past couple of weeks is what he told me. So I can only go on the information that he gave me versus what we’re seeing out there.”

Kelly said his initial concern was to figure out what had happened rather than worrying about when to release the information. He said he immediately forwarded the information to administrative officials.

“That was my first thought,” Kelly said. “Let’s find out what the heck is going on here. Because you get a phone call in the middle of the night, and the first thing is this young lady is not, in fact, dead. You don’t know what to think. So try to get dialogue and make sure that we begin to find out what happened here.

“As we went on in the process, our athletic director, Jack Swarbrick was, as you know, a center in it. And he was putting together all the pieces over a period of time. I don’t know that any of us were motivated by — we don’t want this to be a news story.  We wanted to find out what the facts were.”

Kelly added that he was focused on coaching the Irish in the BCS National Championship Game against Alabama and was not involved in the decision on when to release the information.

Te’o, who struggled in the 42-14 loss, did not appear to be affected by the situation leading up to the game, Kelly said. He said he did not sense his captain played poorly because of the ordeal, but he added that only Te’o could answer that question.

“Manti’s a young man that continues to lead, and you don’t really see him — because, obviously, he went through a tough time during the year, and we didn’t really see anything there that would have set off an alarm that he was under so much pressure concerning the situation,” the third-year coach said. “I just didn’t see it as we practiced and leading into the game.”

Kelly said he thinks Te’o will be remembered as a “great leader on our football team on an undefeated team at Notre Dame” and considers Te’o to be one of the best teammates he has witnessed in his 22 years of coaching.

“He was just special to coach, and he did all the great things that I think great players have to do on a day-to-day basis,” Kelly said. “And we’re going to continue to hold him in that type of esteem.”

Due to the nature of television, with shows continuously needing to be renewed and the threat of cancellation always looming in the background, it’s often difficult to end a TV series in a way that will satisfy fans. Shows can overstay their welcome and give off the sense of treading water while characters become stagnant — just check out “The Office” — while even popular series like “The Sopranos” (1999-2007) and “Lost” (2004-2010) have frustrated their fan bases with polarizing finales. Thankfully, “30 Rock” has avoided these pitfalls and launched a strong comeback in its final episodes of the series, perfecting the show’s sharp wit and quirky humor.

Since its inception in 2006, “30 Rock” has followed the exploits of Liz Lemon (Tina Fey), head writer of the sketch comedy show “TGS.” But “30 Rock” quickly branched out beyond this basic concept, using the backstage setting as a springboard for over-the-top hijinks, eccentric humor and meta references that allowed the show to grow into one of the strangest, funniest comedies on television. While the show was rather hit or miss in later seasons, this final run of episodes in the seventh season has been one of the strongest in the series’ history and epitomizes all that is great about “30 Rock.”

The home stretch of the show finds Liz striving to resolve many of the issues she’s struggled with throughout the series. She’s finally made headway with an adoption agency, has found a steady partner in Criss (James Marsden) and her life generally seems to be looking up. Still, pitfalls lurk. A pending lawsuit has placed the status of “TGS” in jeopardy. Jack Donaghy’s (Alec Baldwin) promotion at Kabletown leaves him unable to save the show while Liz can find no help from her cast and crew to save “TGS,” led by Jenna (Jane Krakowski) and Tracy (Tracy Morgan). All these events coalesce in an organic way, making the episodes in the seventh season feel like a proper build-up to a finale that will bring resolution to all of these plot threads.

Liz’s life may still be a bit less than perfect, but “30 Rock” still manages to fill each moment with hilarious punch lines and rapid-fire gags. Thanks to the fantastic supporting characters, with standouts being Kenneth (Jack McBrayer) and Tracy, there has yet to be a dull moment during the past five episodes. Jenna is still vain as ever in her attempts to upstage everyone else, and Tracy remains the king of irrelevant yet hysterical one-liners. Kenneth has still struggled with trying to find his place in the world, but his plotline ends up arriving at a satisfying conclusion. “30 Rock” has also welcomed back fan-favorites this season, giving recurring characters such as Dr. Spaceman, Devon Banks and Colleen Donaghy one final appearance.

The heart of “30 Rock’s” success lies in the mentor-mentee relationship between Liz and Jack, and the writers have highlighted this remarkably during the concluding season. The mutual admiration and respect between the pair manages to shine through the banter and gags, serving as a reminder as to what will be sorely missed when the series ends. As Jack comes to terms with what he’s looking for in life and as Liz begins to realize that her job can’t always be prioritized over her personal life, the final stretch of episodes finds the two characters remarkably developed and matured since their first appearance in the pilot seven years ago. The audience has followed both the highs and lows of Liz and Jack throughout the years, and this makes the impending conclusion to their storylines all the more satisfying.

It’s a testament to the creative power of Tina Fey and her writers that the quirky “30 Rock” has been able to survive seven years in primetime on a major network. Even though the series finale will not air until tomorrow night, it’s clear from these last few episodes that the writers have put much care into constructing a conclusion that will reward long-time viewers by combining the show’s trademark humor with a surprising level of emotion and sense of farewell. So even if you haven’t watched “30 Rock” in ages, there’s still time to join in and say a final goodbye to Liz Lemon and the rest of the gang at 30 Rockefeller Plaza as the show ends on a high note.

The U.S. Senate confirmed John Kerry as Secretary of State Tuesday, offering the Massachusetts Democrat the job of chief foreign minister for U.S. President Barack Obama.

The Senate voted 94-3 to confirm Kerry to the post, ending what has been a relatively smooth process after Obama’s first nominee, United Nations ambassador Susan Rice, faced stiff opposition when she made confused comments regarding the Benghazi attacks in Libya that killed U.S. ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

“John Kerry’s exhaustive experience and selfless service as a veteran, a senator and a statesman will help him to step seamlessly into the role of Secretary of State,” said Sen. Robert Menendez in a statement Tuesday. “ I am confident that his vast experience and his relationships with the world’s political and military leaders will serve the president and the nation in furtherance of American foreign policy.”

Kerry was approved by a voice vote Tuesday morning by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a committee he currently chairs. Once voted out of the Committee, the full Senate confirmed Kerry Tuesday afternoon.

Kerry, a Vietnam veteran and Massachusetts senator for 28 years, first came on the political scene in 1971 when he testified before the Foreign Relations Committee in support of ending the Vietnam war.

His career in the Senate has been marked by work on issues of foreign policy. Kerry acted as a leading voice toward the ratification of an updated START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia in 2012. He voted in favor of the war in Iraq in 2002, but has since come out against it. In recent years he has also traveled to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Egypt as a diplomat for Obama.

David Palmer, a professor of international relations at Boston Univeristy, listed several major issues Kerry is likely to encounter as Secretary of State.

“Key issues Kerry will face will include Iran, continued Middle East turbulence and especially relations with Israel. [Other issues include] Muslim extremists and the almost certainty of new attacks on Western targets,” he said.

Palmer also said China’s continuing economic and military capacity might pose problems for the U.S.

In his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee Thursday, Kerry emphasized that a strong domestic economy would ensure effective foreign policy.

“I am especially cognizant of the fact that we can’t be strong in the world unless we are strong at home,” Kerry said. “And the first priority of business which will affect my credibility as a diplomat working to help other countries create order, is whether America at last puts its own fiscal house in order.”

Kerry faced a relatively warm reception from Senators on both sides of the aisle. When Obama initially nominated Kerry for Secretary of State in December, Sen. John McCain lauded Kerry’s experience.

“Senator John Kerry has served our nation with honor and distinction for many years,” McCain said in a statement from December. “I congratulate him on this nomination, and look forward to considering it as the Senate fulfills its responsibilities to provide advice and consent.”

Every republican in the Senate voted in favor of Kerry’s nomination save three — Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick praised Kerry’s advocacy and work for the Commonwealth Tuesday, and congratulated him on his position.

“On behalf of the entire Commonwealth, I want to extend my congratulations to Senator Kerry on his confirmation as our nation’s next Secretary of State,” Patrick said in a statement. “In particular, I want to thank Senator Kerry for his decades of service to the people of Massachusetts.”

With Kerry relinquishing his senatorial seat, a special election will take place in Massachusetts later in 2013. The Mass. Democratic party showed its awareness of this position’s availability in a statement Tuesday.

“As John Kerry moves to the forefront of the world stage, Massachusetts voters will have an opportunity to choose a successor who lives up to the high standards he has set,” the statement read.

Kerry will make a farewell speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, according a Kerry spokesman. He will be sworn in as Secretary of State later this week, replacing Hillary Clinton.

Rare is the elected official who maintains his or her support for term limits after actually winning the job, a fact evidenced by the paltry number of co-sponsors on the amendment introduced by Pat J. Toomey at the beginning of this Congress. To the surprise of no one, these advocates are (almost) all newly elected Republicans, the demographic in the Senate with the least to lose from imposing limitations that would most immediately affect their more senior colleagues (perhaps putting some Democratic-held seats in play). While it is easy to mask political expediency sub specie boni, politicians of all stripes should embrace the principle of term limits, regardless of its impact on their career intentions.

The argument against term limits is so well known that it has become axiomatic. Such restrictions on the membership of legislative bodies, it is insisted, would eliminate officials just as they’ve grown knowledgeable about key issues and influential among their peers. Term limits also would be anathema to democracy, as they necessarily restrict the choices present to voters. “We already have term limits,” opponents assert, dutifully providing a civics lesson to the 75 percent of Americans that support curbing the amount of time their leaders can spend living off their dime. “They’re called elections!”

Anyone who makes this latter argument has either a jejune understanding of political science or, more plausibly, is an elected official himself. Only a starry-eyed tyro to the workings of the world could possibly contend with a straight face that elections currently provide citizens with the unrestrained ability to choose new representatives. After all, the advantage of incumbency is well documented throughout American history. To see it, one need look no further than the past election, when over three-fourths of those in Congress were reelected, despite the body’s 9 percent approval rating—a figure making it less popular than colonoscopies, used car salesmen, and lice. As it turns out, it is a lot easier to run for office when your living expenses are already footed by Uncle Sam.

The other argument in opposition to term limits is more difficult to discredit. The notion that a politician gets better at his job the longer he does it is intuitive—that’s true of every professional. However, one has to remember that public service is not just any profession but rather the embodiment of governing principles. Term limits would downplay the role of individuals’ influence in the legislative bodies. Do we really want our laws to be determined by which states have delegations most likely to be found in a Georgetown geriatric ward?

For years, Hawaii held outsize sway in the Senate due to the high positions held by superannuated veterans Daniel K. Akaka and Daniel K. Inouye, the latter of which had represented the islands since they achieved statehood in 1959. While citizens of the 11th-least populous state did not bemoan the importance of influence in Congress at any point during the last half-century, the simultaneity of Inouye’s death and Akaka’s retirement has put them in the precarious position in which no one in their entire Congressional delegation has served for longer than two years. This could pose a bit of an issue for the state that currently receives the fourth-most taxpayer dollars.

Opponents of term limits often paint the picture of a hapless naïf with big dreams walking into Congress unable to deal with the diversity and subtlety of issues that the experienced professionals have spent years learning. Again this viewpoint is both too idealistic and fundamentally dishonest about the real-world apparatus of the legislative branch of the United States government. Members of Congress do not live in some cloistered world, à la the Supreme Court, in which the ideas manifest in their policy proposals are purely their own. Rather, they turn to staff lawyers to craft bills on issues they want to support. Most don’t even read the bills they are supposed to be making informed decisions on. This is not because they are congressional tenderfoots, but rather because the current proceedings do not provide enough time to carefully examine the thousands of bills introduced each year.

The reason that term limit legislation continually dies in Congress is obvious. It is poison hemlock, and, unfortunately, so few of our elected officials are veritable Socratics. Too many politicians look at Congress as a way to increase their statuses and pad their pocketbooks. The argument that the Methuselahs of D.C. are the only ones who can tackle the nation’s problems is a sophomoric one. We manage to find a new and capable president every eight years; there is no reason we can’t find fresh blood from each state to protect the nation’s interests. Besides, it’s not like there isn’t already a professional government class in the district ready to help the newbies out.

Fort Worth police are investigating the death of Texas Christian U. junior strategic communication major Thomas Boone Pickens IV.

According to a published report, police arrived at apartment 312 at Century Colonial Park Apartments on 1800 Rogers Road at 9:33 a.m., after responding to a call.

Officer Sharron Neal, a police department spokesperson, said that Pickens was taken by a private vehicle to an area hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

It is unclear whether the Rogers Road address was Pickens’ residence. The TCU Frog Calls directory listed his current address as 3511 Corto Ave.

Pickens, whose hometown was listed as Austin in the Frog Calls directory, was the grandson of Oklahoma native T. Boone Pickens Jr., the billionaire oil magnate.

Neal said Tuesday that the investigation is continuing.

“We’re looking into all aspects,” Neal said.

Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Kathy Cavins-Tull released a written statement about Pickens’ death Tuesday morning.

“We are deeply saddened by the loss of this member of our community and our hearts and thoughts are with Ty’s family at this time,” Cavins-Tull said. “Staff members are available if students need to speak with someone about this sad news.”

Matt Coffelt, Jake Harris, Liliana Lamas, and Olivia Caridi contributed to this report.

Today 180 million people around the globe are infected with Hepatitis C. In the United States, 3.2 million are infected with the virus—1.6 percent of the American population. Compare this to the prevalence of HIV/AIDS today, and you will see that the difference is colossal: 34 million people are infected with HIV/AIDS globally and 1.2 million people domestically. More people are dying today of Hepatitis C than of HIV/AIDS, a fact that is widely unknown.

While the numbers for HIV/AIDS are still high, they have dropped dramatically since the 1980s and ’90s. Due to an uprising of powerful activists groups and community advocacy, HIV/AIDS was brought to the forefront of political and social issues. Meanwhile, Hepatitis C is on the opposite side of the spectrum. It has lacked a community of concerned individuals and has consequently had very little attention since 1989, when it was first discovered. Advocacy for Hepatitis C is practically dismal, especially compared to HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis B. Funding for Hepatitis C research and resources is virtually negligible. This is due to the fact that Hepatitis C is not only an unspoken topic, but it is also an incredibly complex topic.

Hepatitis C is a slow-progressing, sometimes deadly blood-borne virus that attacks the liver. Of all people with the Hepatitis C virus, up to 85 percent will develop chronic hepatitis. Of this 85 percent, 70 percent will develop chronic liver disease, nearly 20 percent will develop cirrhosis, an incurable disease that results in scarring of the liver, and up to five percent will die of cirrhosis or liver cancer.

What many people are not aware of is that there is now a cure for Hepatitis C. A person with Hepatitis C can be free of the virus within 24 weeks if he or she follows a prescribed treatment plan. However, the virus is asymptomatic, which means that people who are infected are not aware of their status unless they are tested—and Hepatitis C testing is not a commonplace or encouraged procedure among medical institutions. The virus is also most commonly transmitted through injection drugs, contributing to the fact that Hepatitis C is most prevalent among poor, urban, and marginalized populations (especially drug users), many of whom are incapable of or not receptive to seeking out treatment.

This is for reasons such as a lack of motivation, a lack of peer, social, and community support, failure to recognize the long-lasting impact of not seeking treatment, lack of education about the illness, the attached stigmatization of infection, and an under-recognition of the condition (especially due to the fact that one could live 20 years without experiencing any symptoms). In addition, retention rates for those who actually seek treatment are incredibly low because the side effects are highly physically, financially, and emotionally debilitating.

Research has found that Hepatitis C is also most prevalent among the baby-boomer generation, the generation that lived through the “Summer of Love,” when experimentation with Schedule I drugs was especially high. Today, individuals who lived during that era have an HCV prevalence rate of more than double the national average. Targeting this generation is our best bet at drastically dampening the epidemic.

However, the “hippie” generation should not be our only focus. New statistics have shown that Hepatitis C is on the rise among American youth. In Massachusetts alone, HCV prevalence has risen from 65 cases per 100,000 between the ages of 15 and 24 in 2002 to 113 cases per 100,000 in 2009. This has been caused by to an increase in injection drug usage among America’s youth.

What the fight against Hepatitis C needs is both attention and money, and a lot of it. Specifically, it needs funding for programs such as the Division for Viral Hepatitis of the Centers for Disease Control, needle exchange sites, surveillance programs that value both casework and harm-reduction approaches, Hepatitis C education in communities and secondary schools, research funding for the development of a Hepatitis C vaccination, and more. But these needs cannot be met, let alone be requested, until our communities are educated and aware of the gravity and urgency of this issue. The time to act is now.