"poorest and unhealthiest states. The author of the article said that. Is she wrong?"
I would say she is in my view, but I have no real problem with people thinking that as they will stay away longer.
The writer is paraphrasing something she offhandly claims the lawamkers said, so I guess we really don't know what they said in fact.
Mississippi has this reputation because of several factors. It was a rich state before the Civil War but was raped badly by the carpet baggers from the North after the war primarily due to its strong Confederate stance during the war.
Money left and, the big key, was not replaced......
States that have vast sums of money circulating within its borders are rich states and get richer. To achieve that condition, money must enter that state from elsewhere, be drawn into the borders. Texas had oil and California had gold. Make no mistake...... had this two acccidental conditions not existed we would be looking at California and Texas much differently today.......and they would be much, much poorer.
Mississippi had a plethora of ex-slaves and no money and no way for many generations to achieve critical mass monetarily. The poorness and health issues are skewed by the black population of the state and are concentrated in the northwest part of the state, the delta.
Things are changing however, Timber, catfish and gambling
in particular are bringing in money that will in time achieve critical mass. and not too much time either I think.