Mental health care delivery and cost need a reckoning in Oklahoma. Between 700,000 and 950,000 adult Sooners need mental health services, and far too few will receive it. Internal data from Pathways Recovery Centers shows that one in three people seeking treatment don’t qualify for marketplace insurance, and those who turn to state-funded programs face a four- to six-week waitlist. Tragically, some die waiting. Others give up entirely.
More: It’s a financial fiasco at Oklahoma’s mental health agency | Cartoon
Funding cuts from the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (DMHSAS) will only worsen access. A better path forward is re-evaluating contracts, care and operations for modernization and improvement. With AI and new tech tools, innovation can transform care — if the state partners with providers rather than eliminating programs.
At Pathways, early tech investment has helped meet rising need despite financial pressures. We use geographic patient monitoring to reach the 30% of Oklahomans in rural areas, and biometric tools to detect relapse risks earlier — up to 30% more effectively.
Our clinicians also use a generative AI platform that cut documentation time by 70% in six months.
That means more time with patients and continued compliance. This tech helps us meet government demands for efficiency while expanding access to care.
We’ve seen results: 50–60% of clients reach one year sober.
We’ve also improved early detection and readmission by 30%. Fast intervention often means the difference between recovery and tragedy. Our alumni experience a 30% higher employment rate at one year post-treatment compared to national averages.
State leaders should work with, not against, innovative providers. The long-term savings of early intervention and tech adoption outweigh the costs. Our systems are strained — but the tools to fix them are already here. Our residents’ lives depend on it.
―Andrew LaBoon, Edmond
More: Time has come for a clean sweep of Oklahoma’s mental health agency | Editorial
Let’s not turn our back on aid for other countries
If your home were destroyed by a tornado, swept away in a flood or caught in a wildfire, you’d hope someone would show up to help. That’s what U.S. foreign aid does. Offering lifesaving support to families facing war, famine and forced displacement around the world.
But under the proposed 2026 federal budget, this critical aid could be slashed by 48%, and put $20 billion already approved by Congress on the chopping block.
Here in Oklahoma, we don’t turn our backs on those in need. We’ve seen neighbors rebuild after storms and entire communities rally in crisis. Foreign aid is America doing the same for others, many of whom survive on less than $2 a day.
Some argue we give too much. In truth, foreign aid is less than 1% of the U.S. budget. Yet it saves lives, prevents instability, and helps keep our world — and our state — safer.
As an ambassador for The Borgen Project, a nonprofit advocating to end global poverty, I know firsthand how vital this support is. We’re not just helping others — we’re living up to the values that make Oklahoma, and America, truly great.
― Felisha Alexander, Moore
Giving taxpayer money to religious schools is unconstitutional
In his May 16 column on the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, Brian Montgomery misconstrued the historical record about the separation of church and state.
Montgomery quotes James Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” but he ironically ignores the context that Madison wrote this in opposition to Patrick Henry’s attempt to use taxpayer money to fund religious education.
The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution were written by Madison in an attempt to enshrine the freedoms found in Thomas Jefferson’s “Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom” at the federal level.
In his statute, Jefferson wrote, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical. … Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever … nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief. . .”
Here we see that Jefferson and Madison believed that you cannot force people to support religion (e.g., through taxation), and this limitation does not cause others to suffer on account of their religious belief. Jefferson and Madison supported a separation of church and state, and Madison added that separation to the Constitution through his clauses.
Montgomery wants to narrow Jefferson’s and Madison’s interpretation of what the separation of church and state should be. However, Jefferson actually knew someone might attempt this and he ended his Virginia stature with the following warning: “… yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”
― Tom Taylor, Norman
Editor’s note: U.S. Supreme Court on May 22 blocked the religious charter school in Oklahoma in a tie vote.
More: Where is education going in Oklahoma? Nowhere, just like hall of fame portraits | Opinion
Is the Quran next in Oklahoma schools?
Seems to me that inserting the Bible into our classrooms is like opening a can of worms. Aren’t we setting a dangerous precedent by doing this? Next will be the Islamic Quran, the Buddhists’ Tipitaka and so on?
Even though the $3 million for Bibles has not been approved, (state) schools Superintendent Ryan Walters has somehow purchased over 500 “Trump Bibles.” These are Bibles that are endorsed by President Donald Trump for which he has received payment. In my opinion, this effort is becoming more and more questionable. There is currently a lawsuit filed by Oklahoma taxpayers focusing on Walter’s questionable efforts to get this passed. Please let your representatives know your thoughts and opinions about this issue.
― Georgia Newton, Choctaw
I reject the idea of birthright citizenship
I am first-generation born in my family. I was born to a father who was born in Seine, France. My grandfather served in the Army during World War I, 107 years ago, and he got a French woman pregnant. When the war was over, he married that woman. But to bring his son to the U.S. with him and his wife, he had to adopt his son, by proving that he was the father so he could bring him to the U.S. I still have those adoption papers.
More: Birthright citizenship: What does Trump’s executive order say? Are Oklahomans affected?
My father was given citizenship due to that adoption, otherwise my grandfather could not have brought my grandmother and father to the U.S. … Back then … you HAD to be born to a naturalized citizen or an actual citizen of the United States.
I reject any idea that a baby that was born here to foreign nationals is automatically a citizen of the U.S.
― Andre Snodgrass, Norman
Want the latest Viewpoints? Sign up for the Public Square newsletter.
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Readers on Oklahoma mental health agency, foreign aid | Letters