Malaria is one of the world’s oldest and deadliest diseases. Although it is most prevalent in Africa, everyone is susceptible. Around fifteen hundred cases develop yearly here in the United States. Malaria is a global problem, systematically wreaking havoc on countries’ health cares and economies.

But there’s good news. Just this week, California-based scientists made a huge breakthrough in attempting to eradicate malaria for good. Scientists concluded that genetically modified mosquitoes released into the wild might be the answer. The science gets a little tricky, but the inevitable goal is that the global mosquito population in its entirety will no longer be able to pass on malaria to humans. The method is proactive versus reactive, and hits the source instead of medicating already infected people.

Recent Events

On November 4, researchers reported a medical breakthrough. Scientists had mutated and bred a specific strain of mosquito in order to eradicate malaria globally, according to a report from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Biologists used a gene-editing technology called CRIPR-Cas9. The technology allows scientists to remove segments of DNA from an organism and replace it with new ones. In this specific case, the California-based scientists added a set of malaria-resistant genes that could rapidly eradicate the disease from the mosquito population. The gene causes the mosquito to produce antibodies that kill the malaria parasite, making the mosquito unable to transmit the disease. The scientists used a genetic modification technique called gene drive, which ensures that the malaria-killing gene is effectively passed on to future generations.

So how does the gene drive work? Normally, an offspring receives half its traits from each parent, but the researchers found a way around that. With gene drive, the mutant mosquito passes its genes to both of the offspring’s chromosomes. In other words, one mutated mosquito parent will supply all the inherited traits to its offspring when it mates with another wild mosquito, ensuring that the malaria-resistant gene is passed on. In studies, the mutated mosquitoes with gene drive passed on their malaria resistance to 99.5 percent of their offspring. This kind of results can have enormous potential to spread rapidly in the wild. According to the New York Times, spreading genes at this rate could nearly eradicate malaria from mosquitos in as few as 10 generations. This means that a disease that causes about 600,000 deaths each year could be marginalized in just one season.

Anthony A. James from the University of California Irvine Campus led the development of the malaria-resistant genes while Valentino M. Gantz and Ethan Bier of the San Diego Campus led the research on gene drive. But despite their recent success, the scientists all agree that going forward they must tread carefully when implementing their research. Dr. James, Dr. Gantz, and Dr. Beir plan to further refine the mosquito’s genetics in isolated trials before conducting experiments out in the field. They hope that a malaria-endemic country will eventually invite then to conduct trials in the area.

Although the researchers don’t yet have evidence, there could be adverse health effects to releasing the genetically modified mosquitos into the wild. It remains to be seen what would actually happen when a genetically modified mosquitos bit a human or how the population of mosquitoes will be affected in a much larger trial. The most significant fear is that the created mutations would change in the wild. Natural selection could also favor other genes and the mutated the genes may not be passed down through generations. If biologists needed to keep going back and re-modifying the genes it would become uneconomical and possibly unsustainable.

In the mean time, the research remains under ethical review by a committee elected by the National Academy of Sciences.

Overview of Malaria

How is Malaria Transmitted?

Interestingly, only the female mosquitos of the genus group Anopheles can transmit malaria to humans–it’s actually quite a small group. Altogether, there are 3,500 species of mosquitos categorized into 41 different genera. In the Anopheles genus, there are around 430 species. And of these, only 30-40 species have the ability to transmit malaria.

These specific mosquitoes may transmit the disease if they carry the malaria parasite. The transfer happens when a parasite-carrying mosquito consumes the blood of a human. The maturation of the parasite inside of a mosquito host involves several factors, including temperature, humidity, and the life duration of the host. For example, the parasite generally must reside in the mosquito for 10 to 21 days–this is called the extrinsic incubation period. If the mosquito dies before the culmination of this period, the parasite cannot be transferred. The parasite does not negatively affect the mosquito’s health as it would a human.

Mosquitoes either prefer to feed on humans or animals, designated anthropophilic and zoophilic, respectively. Most Anopheles tend to be neither 100 percent anthropophilic nor zoophilic, meaning that they often don’t have a preference for humans over animals or vice versa. However, two species, An. gambiae and An. funestus, are strongly anthropophilic. This makes them extremely adept as malaria vectors for humans. Since they both reside in Africa, it makes sense that Africa is where we see the most malaria cases in the world.

Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Oceania are prime locations for the malaria parasite to survive. The climate conditions are optimal–tropical and subtropical locations allow anthropophilic mosquitos to easily reach maturation and breed. For example, the parasite’s growth cycle will stop, preventing transmission, if the temperature is lower than 68 F degrees. High altitudes and deserts will kill the parasite as well. In some endemic areas, transmissions will be more seasonal if the region has a cooler climate.

Symptoms

The malaria parasite is called Plasmodium. Four different species of Plasmodium cause human malaria: P. falciparum, P. malariae, P. ovale and P. vivax. The P. falciparum species causes the most severe symptoms.

Symptoms can occur anywhere from a week to three months after exposure. In very rare cases, symptoms will occur later than three months. Initial symptoms can be relatively mild, including fever, chills, headache, muscular aching, weakness, vomiting, cough, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. These milder symptoms may or may not preface more severe ones, including renal failure, pulmonary edema, generalized convulsions, and circulatory collapse, followed by coma and death. Death can result if P. falciparum is not treated within one week of the beginning of clinical symptoms.

The other three parasites are rarely as life threatening but can still cause extreme distress. P. vivax and P. ovale can reside dormant in the liver for years, and may cause sporadic relapses months, or even years after the first exposure.

A typical malaria attack can last between six and ten hours. At first, a cold stage will bring on cold-like symptoms with shivering. This is followed by a hot stage consisting of fever, headaches, vomiting, and seizures in young children. The attack ends with excessive sweating, followed by the normalization of temperature and tiredness. These attacks will occur every other day or every third day with the P. malariae parasite.

People with weaker immune systems are at a greater risk of infection. These groups usually tend to be young children, pregnant women, people who are immunosuppressed, and elderly travelers. Infected pregnant women are at risk of maternal death, miscarriage, stillbirth, and neonatal death.

Treatment

Treatment for malaria is an ongoing battle. Scientists create a new drug, only for the parasite to alter itself and become resistant. Scientists go back and modify that drug, only for it to happen again. For example, chloroquine (common antimalarial drug) is, for all intents and purposes, useless in many endemic regions due to resistance. Other common antimalarial drugs include Quinine sulfate, Hydroxychloroquine, Mefloquine, and a combination of atovaquone and proguanil.

The recommended drug and the length of use both depend on the specific malaria parasite, symptoms, age, and whether the patient is pregnant.

Worldwide and the United States

Each year, there are 300 to 500 million clinical cases of malaria reported worldwide; 90 percent of these cases originate in Africa and approximately one million cases result in death. There are over 90 endemic countries globally, putting 40 percent of the world population at risk of malaria infection.

On average, a child dies from malaria in Africa every 30 seconds. The most common age of death is just four years old. Malaria kills 5 percent of African children. This equates to nearly 3,000 deaths each day. An estimated 23 percent of African infants are born with the malaria parasite. Many families simply cannot afford to be sick. A single malaria attack can cost approximately 10 to 20 working days in India and Africa.

Although most cases occur in Africa, the West is not immune. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 1,600 to 2,000 cases in the United States each year. But CDC believes only half of malaria cases in the United States are actually reported.

Americans that travel to endemic countries are also at high risk of contracting the disease. Biting an infected person who has previously traveled to an endemic country can infect a local mosquito, which can then continue to transmit the virus. In the past five years, there have even been cases of local transmissions in California, Texas, Michigan, and the greater New York City area.

Conclusion

This is exciting news! But this research still faces several challenges and will remain controversial. We do not yet know how introducing genetically modified mosquitos will affect the current population and many people are wary of manipulating genetics to this extent. Introducing anything into the wild could have unforeseen consequences to the environment and fragile ecosystems. But if this research continues its success, these scientists may have found the cure to one of the deadliest diseases in the world.

Resources

Primary

PNAS: Highly Efficient Cas9-Mediated Gene Drive for Population Modification of the Malaria Vector Mosquito Anopheles stephensi

WHO: Malaria

CDC: Anopheles Mosquitoes

CDC: About Malaria

CDC: Where Malaria Occurs

Additional

The National Academies of Science: Project Information

The New York Times: Engineering Mosquitoes’ Genes to Resist Malaria

Mayo Clinic: Malaria

The Washington Post: Scientists create a mutant mosquito that could help eradicate malaria

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Malaria: Did Scientists Finally Find a Solution? appeared first on Law Street.

Barcelona wants independence. The parliament of Catalonia, the region in which Barcelona lies, voted to secede from the Spanish government by 2017. But this may or may not happen. Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, has already publicly denounced the move and has plans to fight it. The region of Catalonia, especially Barcelona, is a prime destination for tourists visiting Spain. Although the news might come as a shock to outsiders, the seed of independence has been growing in the region for years. But why? And what are its chances of success?

Recent Events

On November 9, Catalans approved a plan to eventually withdraw from Spain. The two pro-succession parties won a majority of legislative seats in the Catalan parliament in a landmark win back in September, which paved the way for the recent parliament vote. The “Together for Yes” alliance won 62 seats in the 135 member parliament. In addition to the Together for Yes alliance, the pro-independence Popular Unity Candidacy Party (CUP) won another 10 seats, adding up to a majority. The local Catalan government is led by President Artur Mas of the Democratic Convergence for Catalonia Party, which is part of the alliance.

However, there is a slight caveat. A majority of seats doesn’t necessarily equate a majority of the popular vote. An odd Spanish election law grants a greater percentage of seats to rural areas with fewer voters. In other words, the two parties received just 48 percent of the vote, but a majority of the seats. Catalans who live in rural areas tend to favor separatism more than those in urban areas, but the vote gave more voice to rural Catalans. The leading candidate of the anti-independence Citizens Party, Ines Arrimadas, responded, “[Artur Mas] said the majority of Catalans were with him. Today the majority of Catalans turned their back on him and the only thing he must do is resign.”

“Together for Yes” and the CUP both favor separatism; however, they aren’t always in tune. For example, the CUP initially claimed it wouldn’t approve a succession plan unless the two parties cumulatively received more than 50 percent of the vote. The CUP also favor immediate withdrawal, in contrast to the current 18-month succession plan supported by the Together for Yes Parties. Back in September, the CUP’s leading parliamentary candidate, Antonio Banos, claimed that the CUP would not back Mas for president. However, differences were put aside (at least temporarily) to approve the current plan.

Members Approve A Withdrawal Plan

The plan for withdrawal was approved by the regional parliament of Catalonia with a vote of 72 to 63. But after the vote, Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy immediately claimed he would appeal the decision to the Constitutional Court and would join forces with the main opposition leader fighting against the cause. However, the plan instructs the regional government to not follow a contradicting court decision, calling for Catalonia to begin drafting a constitution within 30 days. The new constitution is to be voted on in a referendum in the future and the plan instructs the government to implement a new tax office and social security administration. Anti-secessionist branches of the Catalan parliament initially tried to block the vote, but the Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the vote a week before. Although the court supported the vote, it is still expected to swiftly deem the plan illegal.

Leadership

Artur Mas’ third term is far from guaranteed. Most likely, the Catalan parliament will begin a debate over whether Mas should continue his reign as head of the region’s government. Mas only retains 62 of the required 68 votes needed to stay in his position. Obviously, the anti-independence parties are against him, as is the CUP. Mas has a history of conservative austerity policies. Either way, the regional parliament must form a government by January 9 or call for new elections.

The move toward Catalan separation will be a hot topic in Spain’s upcoming national election. Rajoy’s response to the issue may be a determining factor in whether his party, the People’s Party, will remain in power.

A Brief History of Catalonia

The Catalan people are extremely proud of their unique culture and identity. This is true for those that want to be an independent nation and for those that identify as Spaniards as well. Catalonia borders the Mediterranean Sea in the northeast of Spain and is separated from southern France by the Pyrenean mountains. Barcelona serves as the region’s capital.

Catalonia became a part of Spain when King Ferdinand of Aragon married Queen Isabella of Castille in the 15th century. Although Spanish culture seemed to be taking over the region, a resurgence of the Catalan identity emerged in the 19th century. This period saw the beginning of Catalonia’s campaign for political autonomy and at times, separatism. The movement was rewarded when Spain became a republic in 1931 and gave Catalonia its much-desired autonomy. Shortly afterward, Barcelona fell to General and dictator Francisco Franco, as did its autonomy. Franco heavily restricted the Catalan government, culture, and language.

The death of Franco in 1975 restored many freedoms to Catalonia, even though the bad blood has never quite been forgotten. Today, Catalonia has a “Generalitat” made up of its parliament and executive. The Catalan language is publicly used in education, government, and the media. Almost all Catalans are bilingual, speaking Spanish in addition to Catalan. As a region, Catalonia excels in manufacturing and technology. While it previously focused on textile production, its economy now centers on chemicals, food processing, and metalworking.

Why does Catalonia want independence?

Long story short, the desire for independence comes down to three basic elements: politics, economics, and nationalism.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s conservative People’s Party is the fourth largest in Catalonia and strongly opposes the Catalan independence movement. Artur Mas is the leader of the Convergència Democràtica de Catalunya (CDC). The CDC, along with the left wing Equerra Republicana de Catalunya Party, the conservative Christian Democrates de Catalunya Party, and the social-democratic Moviment d’Esquerres Party make up the Together for Yes coalition. Although the political leanings of these four groups vary widely, they all want Catalan independence.

Catalonia is widely considered the industrial hub of Spain. It also brings in a large amount of money from its tourism industry. All in all, it produces 18.8 percent of Spain’s economic output. Many natives feel that Catalonia gives more to Madrid in taxes than it receives in government investment. Spain’s economic crisis only exacerbated these sentiments. Lastly, Catalonia pride needs to be taken into account. Catalans are immensely proud of their traditions and culture including food, language, and football.

An Informal Vote

In November 2014, an unofficial vote took place in Catalonia asking if the region should be independent. Over two million people voted out of approximately 5.4 million eligible voters. Over 80 percent of the voters backed an official referendum on Catalan independence. The vote occurred despite strong opposition from the Spanish government.

On the ballot, there were two questions. First, if Catalonia should be a state and second, if that state should be independent. In total, 2,236,606 Catalan citizens took part in the vote. A little over 10 percent voted yes for the first question and no to the second. Approximately 4.5 percent voted no to both questions.

Spanish Justice Minister Rafael Catala declared the vote to be a “sham” and stated, “The government considers this to be a day of political propaganda organized by pro-independence forces and devoid of any kind of democratic validity.”

However, the unofficial vote was an important factor leading to the official vote on independence. It proved the strength and numbers behind the movement.

Response

The Catalan independence movement was officially halted by Spain’s Constitutional Court shortly after the regional government’s vote as the court announced it would hear the Spanish government’s appeal. This is an official suspension pending the court’s ruling.

The government appeal was swift. Prime Minister Rajoy proclaimed, “This is an appeal against a resolution that aims to break up the unity of Spain.” He said, “this is about defending a whole country.” Spain’s economic crisis has resulted in the unemployment of one in five Spaniards. A major fear is that the loss of Catalonia will disrupt the country’s recovery.

The court’s ruling stated, “This is a warning to [Catalan leaders] that if they fail to comply with the suspension, they may commit disobedience.” However, as mentioned above, the Catalan government does not plan to adhere to the Constitutional Court’s ruling.

European leaders also warn that independence could result in an ejection from the European Union and the economic and security benefits that membership has to offer. However, leaders of the independence movement believe there may be ways to side-step such an ejection.

Tensions between Catalonia and Spain are increasing considerably and will likely continue as the dispute continues. Rajoy did not invite Mas to his meeting with Spanish political leaders concerning jihadist terrorism, although Catalonia has a relatively high level of jihadist activity relative to the rest of Spain.

Conclusion

As Catalonia’s attempt to secede from Spain mounts much remains to be seen. How will the Spanish Constitutional Court rule? How will the ruling realistically affect the endurance of the movement? The upcoming national election will be extremely telling in regards to the movement’s future. It will be a hot topic on candidates’ platforms and the country’s reaction as a whole will be insightful.

Another question to keep in mind is will the anti-independence Catalan citizens make a stand? There are many people convinced that the independence-seeking citizens in Catalonia may not even constitute a majority. Regardless, the world is watching.

Resources

BBC: Catalonia Profile

BBC: Catalonia Vote

CBS: Catalonia Makes it Official

CBS: Pro-secession Parties in Catalonia Win Landmark Vote

Euro News: Spain

The Irish Times: Standoff Puts Catalonia’s Independence Plans in Jeopardy

The Telegraph: Why does Catalonia Want Independence from Spain?

The Local: Catalonia Elections

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Independence for Catalonia: Will it Become a Reality? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been about a month since the Obama administration publicly announced that the negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) were completed, and just last week the full text of the agreement was released to the public. It will be the largest free-trade agreement in history, including 12 counties and roughly 40 percent of the global economy.

The umbrella agreement writes universal rules and standards for trade markets around the Pacific. Although all the countries involved still need to ratify the agreement, the release is an important step in that direction. In the United States, President Obama is now in the midst of securing Congressional consent, despite heavy criticism. This will likely be an uphill battle that comes down to one basic question: will the TPP benefit the U.S. economy and global markets? While the text of the 30-chapter deal was only recently made public, trade groups and labor unions are already entrenched in their support or opposition for the deal, which will become even more contentious in the coming months.

An Overview of the TPP

Who is involved?

In total, there are 12 countries involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, namely the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, Chile, Brunei, Singapore, and New Zealand. Indonesia may also join in the future.

Why does the United States support the TPP?

According to the White House, the TPP will establish American leadership and influence in the Pacific. President Obama strongly supports the deal because he believes that it will strengthen the U.S. economy and national security. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, the deal is meant further U.S. interests and create an equal playing field for everyone “by requiring other countries to play by fair wage, safe workplace, and strong environmental rules that we help set.” The TPP will also cut over 18,000 taxes that countries have on American goods and services, which may help American companies gain additional access to global markets.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is intended to make the United States highly competitive in the Pacific while prioritizing American interests and values. According to the White House, the TPP does this by eliminating preferential treatment of state-owned enterprises over American businesses, protecting trade secrets, ensuring open internet access, and creating fair markets between the United States and foreign countries.

What’s Covered by the TPP?

In short, almost everything. The pact will affect 12 countries and over 40 percent of the world’s economy and a massive amount of goods and services. For example, tariffs will be removed on textiles and clothing and potentially eliminated for carmakers. Tariffs on American cars are as high as 70 percent in Vietnam, making their removal a major win for the U.S. auto industry. Currently, American poultry is taxed up to 40 percent in some countries and soybeans are taxed as highly as 35 percent. Other foods that may be affected include dairy, sugar, wine, rice, and seafood. Major food-exporting countries like New Zealand and Australia stand to benefit from the removal of these barriers.

Removing tariffs is not the only potential consequence of the TPP; there are also notable, but controversial, patent protection provisions. The TPP would allow pharmaceutical companies eight years of protection on new biotech drugs. Doing so ensures that pharmaceutical companies can profit from new groundbreaking drugs, but may also keep prices high as competitors have to wait longer to make generic versions. The TPP intends to removal global internet barriers as well. For example, Google will be able to sell products in foreign markets that are currently restricted. The intended reduction of global roaming charges could cause an increase in competition among Telecom heavyweights. For more information on the intellectual property implications of the TPP check out Sam Whitsell’s issues brief explainer.

The TPP also creates new labor standards for all countries involved. Each country must adhere to the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The TPP protects unions, prohibits child labor and forced labor, and standardizes minimum wage and work hours, along with a variety of other protections. The agreement also strengthens international environmental standards with new resource protections. The White House argues that these provisions will “level the playing field” between the United States and the other countries and President Obama has also called it the “most progressive trade deal in history.”

Where is China?

It’s called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, right? One could reasonably think that China’s massive economy would be involved–China is the largest exporter and second largest importer in the world. But China has, so far, not played a role in the negotiations and has no plans to join the agreement.

In fact, the White House argues that, “with the TPP, we can rewrite the rules of trade to benefit America’s middle class. Because if we don’t, competitors who don’t share our values, like China, will step in to fill that void.” The TPP specifically attempts to work around what some perceive to be obstructionism from China. Despite being part of the World Trade Organization (WTO), China has made free trade agreements more challenging to develop. The TPP ultimately allows for Chinese inclusion, but isn’t designed to “Chinese specifications” and cannot be vetoed by China. The agreement seeks to spread Western values to many of China’s important trading partners.

Some believe sidelining China is a mistake, even if the United States is trying to limit China’s control. Felipe Caro and Christopher Tang, business professors at UCLA, argue that the idea that China can be locked out of the agreement is naive, as China is the world’s leading trading nation. China has loaned money to and indebted a variety of countries, in an effort to spread its influence abroad. As of the end of 2014, China gave Bangladesh $3.8 billion and Pakistan $17.8 billion, which illustrates the power and influence that China has in many developing nations. Furthermore, China is aiming to create the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, an international bank that according to Caro and Tang “would help finance infrastructure projects across the Asia Pacific.” They further note that the bank has the support of “47 regional and 20 non­regional members, including TPP nations, such as Australia, Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam.”

China also has pre-established trade agreements with a number of TPP members. This could severely hinder the efficiency of the TPP in practice. China has a lot of leverage at its disposal and leaving China out of the negotiations may have unforeseen consequences.

TPP Lingo

While Congress has not yet decided on the Trans-Partnership itself, there have been a number of votes on related issues. Before we get into those, let’s go over some of the acronyms that get thrown around in discussions of the TPP.

The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP): A separate trade deal that the United States is negotiating with the European Union. According to the U.S. Trade Representative:

T-TIP will help unlock opportunity for American families, workers, businesses, farmers and ranchers through increased access to European markets for Made-in-America goods and services. This will help to promote U.S. international competitiveness, jobs and growth.

This agreement is related to the Trans-Pacific Partnership in that it will also utilize the Trade Promotion Authority that was recently passed by Congress–which brings us to our next definition.

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): This simply means that Congress cannot amend or filibuster the TPP or TTIP. Congress must vote on each trade deal exactly as it is–yes or no. Trade Promotion Authority is what many refer to as the “fast track” method. It authorizes the president to formalize trade agreements with countries abroad, limiting Congress to simply voting to approve an agreement. In terms of Congressional oversite, TPA will give members of Congress access to read the negotiating text, receive briefings on negotiations, have time to review the deal, and outline objectives for the U.S. Trade Representative.

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA): Initially created in the Trade Act of 1974, it offers compensation to workers and companies hurt by trade agreements, along with job search and training assistance. According to GovTrack, the current TAA would give states more control over job assistance and reduce healthcare costs to workers affected by the TPP. Historically, trade assistance has always been associated with Trade Promotion Authority because it appeases Democrats, who worry about the effect of trade agreements on blue collar workers. Although TAA initially failed in Congress after it was separated from TPA, it was eventually included in the Trade Preferences Extension Act, which passed several days later.

Criticism of the TPP

There are many TPP supporters who believe that the agreement will stimulate economic growth in all countries involved. President Obama wrote in a press release that “if we can get this agreement to my desk, then we can help our businesses sell more Made in America goods and services around the world, and we can help more American workers compete and win.” However, there are many loud critics of the partnership in the United States.

A major fear is that American jobs will be shipped overseas to developing countries. The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the TPP’s predecessor, remains controversial in the United States. Although some claim NAFTA boosted small to medium sized American businesses, others argued that the agreement resulted in the loss of thousands of domestic jobs to foreign countries. Free trade agreements inspire competition between international labor forces, which can cause jobs to move to where businesses can save money. For example, with increased integration under the TPP, the American labor force could be forced to compete with workers in Vietnam where the hourly wage is $2.75 and labor laws are less strict.

Others also argue that the politics of other nations involved are equally delicate. For example, Australia has a major problem with the TPP’s potential consequences for the pharmaceutical industry, as it will extend the length of patents for drug companies. Critics claim that these extensions will result in decreased competition, leading to inflated prices for name brand drugs. Poorer countries could have even less access to life-saving medicines due to the influence of intellectual property protections on drug prices.

It is also interesting to note that Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, a former supporter of the TPP as Secretary of State, recently came out against the deal after having supported it in the earlier stages of negotiations. When asked about her stance on the deal in the Democratic debate, Clinton responded:

It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn’t meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, ‘this will help raise your wages.’ And I concluded I could not.

She expanded on her position in an interview with PBS.

It seems that Democrats and Republicans alike have doubts on this agreement, despite its aggressive backing from the White House.

Conclusion

Although the text of the deal was only released recently, the fight behind it has become particularly heated over the past several months. As politicians, trade and labor groups, and the public continue to review the text it is likely that it will become even more controversial in the coming weeks. Congress will soon have to vote on the deal, which could have wide-ranging implications for the United States and other members of the protocol.

Resources

Primary

Medium: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

The White House: How the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Boosts Made in America Exports, Supports Higher-Paying American Jobs, and Protects American Workers

The White House: Statement by the President on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

The White House: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Additional

BBC: TPP Trade Deal: Who are the Winners and Losers?

CNN Money: Why Everyone Hates Obama’s Signature Trade Deal

Fortune: Leaving China out of the TPP is a Terrible Mistake

The Atlantic: Why Americans Are Turning Against Free Trade

BBC: TPP: What is it and Why Does it matter?

Gov Track: How Congress Voted on Trade?

Politifact: What Hillary Clinton Really Said About TPP and the ‘Gold Standard’

USTR: Strategic Importance of the TPP

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Going on With the Trans-Pacific Partnership? appeared first on Law Street.

ISIL and the Iran Nuclear Deal have dominated the news in the Middle East as of late. But this week brings another headline contender, the actions of the Afghan Taliban. On Monday, the Taliban gained serious headway by capturing the major Afghan provincial capital of Kunduz. This is a real setback for the U.S.-trained Afghan security forces. The attack also raises the question of whether the U.S. will pursue the same exit plan from Afghanistan as it had intended.

The Attack on Kunduz

By the end of this summer, the Taliban and Afghan government were at an essential stalemate after months of back and forth. There weren’t any real victories nor losses; however, that quickly changed on Monday. Taliban forces took the city of Kunduz within hours of attacking. Kunduz was last under the Taliban’s control in 2001, before the U.S. entered Afghanistan and the Taliban fell from power. The city was considered one of the regional “centers of the American troop surge” five years ago. It is also the first major city to fall to the Taliban in fourteen years.

Kunduz, Afghanistan’s fifth largest city, was estimated to contain 300,000 residents in 2013. However, with the recent exodus of refugees in the Middle East, the number is probably lower. The city sits in the far north of the country, and is considered a main trading center as it contains essential supply lines and smuggling routes. The city is located approximately forty miles from the Tajikistan border.

During the siege, the Taliban freed hundreds of prisoners held in Kunduz. Crowds following the lead of a Taliban fighter with a megaphone chanted “Death to America! Death to the slaves of America!” Of the 600 freed inmates, 144 are reportedly members of the Taliban.

As for casualties, a spokesman for the Public Health Ministry, Wahidullah Mayar, tweeted that 30 people had been killed and more than 200 injured. He also stated that 90 percent of them were civilians. The main trauma center, run by Doctors Without Borders, reported receiving 171 wounded people, including 46 children. A representative from the center also expressed extreme concern over limited supplies and a growing number of wounded civilians.

After the attack, the newly elected emir of the Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, issued a statement to the residents of Kunduz. The statement hit five focal points: the Taliban would safeguard the city and the people inside, it would refrain from “extrajudicial killings, looting or breaching,” residents should feel safe in returning to work as normal, the Taliban would not retaliate against security forces or the government, and lastly, the Afghan government should discontinue blaming “outside intelligence agencies” for its defeats. However, according to the New York Times, alleged reports and videos from inside the city counter these promises. According to one official, electricity and phone services are out in most of the city. Roads to enter and leave the city have also been blocked.

A Lack of Preventative Measures?

The fall of Kunduz has left some questioning the strength and pragmatism of the Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani.

First off, the success of the attack itself may have been able to be prevented. Over the course of the past year, local officials in Kunduz reported Taliban movement surrounding the city. Meanwhile, some members of the Afghan government, along with Western officials, didn’t appear to take these concerns seriously. They believed the Taliban’s gain to be minimal and isolated to rural areas. Mohammad Yousuf Ayoubi, the head of the Kunduz provincial council, stated that although 70 percent of the province surrounding the city remained under Taliban control, zero efforts were made by security forces to make an offensive move or reinforce the city. This lack of preparation is being partly blamed for the fall of Kunduz.

The Counter-Response

As of Wednesday, the counter-attack had yet to see much success. On Tuesday, Afghan security forces fought back, including at least two U.S. air strikes. But by Wednesday morning, the situation seemed worse. Afghan reinforcements were held in the Baghlan Province, completely stopped or delayed by Taliban ambushes. One report cited 1000 Afghan soldiers and police officers held in the northern part of Baghlan.

The Taliban further advanced Tuesday night, surrounding the local airport, where hundreds of Afghan forces and civilians retreated. During the course of the night, “at least 17 members of the Afghan National Civil Order Police were wounded and one was killed defending the area around the airport.” The situation mildly improved after the U.S. air strikes, but U.S. attempts to airdrop food and ammunition reportedly failed. By noon on Wednesday, 60 soldiers had surrendered or had been taken by the Taliban.

So, how does this recent development fit into the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan?

The U.S. and Afghanistan

The End of the War

On December 28, 2014, the U.S.-led coalition ended its combat mission in Afghanistan. The war began October 7, 2001, when the Taliban harbored and refused to give up Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. U.S and NATO allies have remained ever since in order to train Afghan military forces and police officers to be self-sufficient, even after the fall of the Taliban.

“Over the course of a decade,” stated Army General John Campbell, chief of the International Security Assistance Force, “our Afghan partners and we have built a highly capable Afghan army and police force of over 350,000 personnel.” December 2014 marked the end of the longest war in American history and the transition to the NATO Resolute Support mission. The mission called to gradually reduce troops on the ground and “train, advise and assist” Afghan Security Institutions. Twenty-eight NATO Allies and 14 partner nations contributed to the mission.

The Removal of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan

Before the formal end of the war, President Obama laid out a removal plan of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in May 2014. He planned to remove all but 9,800 American troops by the end of 2014, cut that number in half by 2015, and eventually pull the remaining troops by 2016. By the end of his presidency, President Obama planned the U.S. presence in Afghanistan to be that of a normal embassy with a security assistance office in Kabul.

This past May the plan was modified. During a meeting at the White House, President Ghani asked for the withdrawal plan to be slowed down. The meeting clearly reflects a serious concern on behalf of Ghani that a Taliban resurgence could manifest once U.S. forces have departed. Obama agreed to keep the number of U.S. forces at 9,800 until the end of the year, but still vowed to uphold his decision to remove all forces by 2016. Obama’s approval of the additional 5,000 troops shows confidence in Ghani’s leadership. Relations between the Obama administration and Ghani’s predecessor, Hamid Karzai, had rapidly crumbled before Karzai’s term ended. Unlike Ghani, Karzai refused to sign a bilateral security agreement in exchange for a continued U.S. military presence. Obama called Ghani’s leadership “critical to the pursuit of peace.”

Criticism

The current removal plan from Afghanistan is very reminiscent of the removal of U.S forces from Iraq in 2011, which did lead to severe consequences. Although the Obama administration exudes confidence in the status of the Afghan security forces, some Republicans and other critics fear history will repeat itself. Violence erupted in Iraq after the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Critics claim the void of leadership allowed the growth of ISIL.

The fall of Kunduz promptly led to statements equating it to Iraq.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, stated “The fall of Kunduz to the Taliban is not unlike the fall of Iraqi provinces to ISIL…it is a reaffirmation that precipitous withdrawal leaves key allies and territory vulnerable to the very terrorists we’ve fought so long to defeat.”

In a similar tone, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), stated “It is time that President Obama abandon this dangerous and arbitrary course and adopt a plan for U.S. troop presence based on conditions on the ground.”

If anything, the current state of Kunduz doesn’t promote confidence in Afghanistan’s forces maintaining control.

Conclusion

The Taliban’s control of Kunduz may very well be short-lived. But it could also be a warning sign. The strength and leadership of the Afghan government’s security forces needs to be able to stand on its own. We may be looking at a conflict that draws the United States back in. As of this moment, peace talks between the Ghani government and Taliban have been all but abandoned, and the situation seems to be worsening–what happens next will depend on the many players wrapped up in the growing conflict.

Resources

Primary

NATO: Transition Ceremony Kicks off Resolute Support Mission

Additional

The Long War Journal: Taliban Emir Seeks to Reassure Residents of Kunduz

New York Times: Taliban Fighters apture Kunduz City as Afghan Forces Retreat

New York Times: Taliban and Afghan Government Dispute Status of Kunduz

New York Times: U.S. Strikes Taliban-Held Land Near Kunduz Airport as Afghan Crisis Deepens

Time: U.S. Ends Its War in Afghanistan

Reuters: Afghan Forces Fight to Retake Northern City from Taliban

Reuters: Obama Plans to End U.S. Troop Presence in Afghanistan by 2016

Reuters: Troops from U.S.-led mission fight Taliban near Afghan city

The Washington Post: Obama agrees to slow U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan

 I

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Taliban Captures Kunduz: Should the U.S. Still Leave Afghanistan as Planned? appeared first on Law Street.

The state of New York and the U.S. Department of Justice are now investing millions in testing backlogged rape kits. The grants will be allotted to local jurisdictions across America in hopes of bringing justice for rape victims. New York was the first state to start this process and is at the forefront of the effort. The grants will not only serve to convict rapists, but will also prevent future crimes by putting criminals behind bars.

Overview

Prevalence of Sexual Assault in the United States

It is commonly known that the number of sexual assault crimes are grossly underestimated. Due to the nature of the crime, victims are often reluctant to report what happened to them. But according to a 2010 report by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, one in five women in the U.S. will be raped in their lifetimes. Statistics show a sexual assault crime occurs every two minutes, but only 39 percent of those crimes are reported.

What is Rape Kit?

When a victim of sexual assault does report the crime, a sexual assault kit (SAK), also known as a rape kit, is used by a doctor or nurse (usually in a hospital) to preserve possible DNA evidence. Then the SAK is turned over to the police. The process is extremely invasive and can last between four and six hours. First, the victim stands on a large paper sheet, while undressing, in order to contain any stray fibers or hairs that could be used as evidence. According to ENDTHEBACKLOG, the examiner collects biological evidence from the victim’s “saliva, blood, semen, urine, skin cells and hair by taking swabs of the victim’s skin, genitalia, anus and mouth, scraping under the victim’s fingernails and combing through the victim’s hair.” The victim is also photographed from head to toe to document any and all injuries. In order to preserve evidence, victims are asked to not eat, drink, or urinate until the exam in over.

Generally, a state SAK will include: Detailed instructions for the examiner, forms for documenting the procedure and evidence collected, tubes and containers for blood and urine samples, paper bags for collecting clothing and other physical evidence, swabs for biological evidence collection, a large sheet of paper, dental floss and wooden sticks for fingernail scrapings, glass slides, sterile water and saline, and envelopes, boxes and labels for each part of the exam.

Some states have highly trained staff to conduct these procedures called Sexual Assault Forensic Examiners (SAFEs) or Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs). Not only are they trained on how to be more specifically sensitive to sexual assault victims, studies show that SAKs conducted by SAFEs or SANEs are more consistent and of higher quality. If examiners aren’t extremely careful, the experience could feel like a re-victimization to the patient or the SAK could be inadmissible in court due to mishandling.

After the SAK is completed and given to local law enforcement, DNA from the kit and alleged rapist is entered into the FBI’s national database CODIS (Combined DNA Index System). CODIS allows authorities to track serial rapists across the United States.

Untested SAKs

There are several different reasons for the large backlog of untested rape kits. They may not have been sent to a public or private crime lab in a timely fashion and remain in storage–including police department evidence rooms, crime labs, hospitals, clinics, rape crisis centers–or the SAKS remain at the lab without being processed. Although the exact number of backlogged SAKs across the country is unknown, the numbers found in specific cities are quite staggering. In 2009, 11,000 forgotten SAKs were found in a Detroit police warehouse. In addition, Los Angeles has almost 12,500 backlogged kits, Houston has approximately 6,500, and Memphis has over 12,000.

SAK backlogs have become a significant issue for local police departments, a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) survey of more than 2,000 law enforcement agencies found:

18 percent of unsolved alleged sexual assaults that occurred from 2002 to 2007 contained forensic evidence that was still in police custody (not submitted to a crime lab for analysis).

The NIJ study noted that some SAKs remain in law enforcement custody when the case is a matter of “consent.” In that case, the suspect admits to sexual intercourse, but maintains that is was consensual. A SAK will not shed light on that matter. Cases could have also been dropped, or a guilty verdict was already rendered.

Other reasons are far more alarming. Forty-three percent of the agencies claimed they did not have a computerized system for tracking forensic evidence, either in their inventory or for after it was sent to the crime lab. Nearly 45 percent of the law enforcement agencies admitted that one of the reasons they kept SAKS was that they didn’t have a suspect. And fifteen percent reasoned that the analysis had not been requested by a prosecutor. Three in 10 officers claimed they did not turn in the SAK because they were unsure of its usefulness. Another 11 percent of the agencies claimed one reason they didn’t submit evidence was due to consistent untimely results of the lab, while another six percent claimed the lab wasn’t accepting more evidence because of a backlog. The NIJ study also argues that biases contribute to the problem. For example, SAKs may have gone untested if the victim was a prostitute, a drug user, or was mentally ill.

There are several explanations for the backlog of SAKS, but one thing is clear–law enforcement agencies across the country are not on the same page whether from a lack of training, funding, or personal prejudices.

New Funding

Earlier this month, Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance announced that $80 million worth of grants would be invested into radically reducing the number of backlogged SAKs across the United States. In the announcement, Vance said that the state of New York is donating $38 million to 32 jurisdictions in 20 states, while Lynch pledged $41 million to investigate the reasons behind the backlog. “I’m saying today to all the women awaiting justice,” Vance stated, “you are not forgotten.” Together, the funds from Department of Justice (DOJ) and state of New York are expected to help test 70,000 untested SAKs in 43 jurisdictions in 27 states.

Vice President Biden praised the effort saying,

When we solve these cases, we get rapists off the streets… For most survivors, seeing their rapists brought to justice, and knowing that they will not return, brings peace of mind and a sense of closure. The grants we’re announcing today to reduce the national rape kit backlog will bring that sense of closure and safety to victims while improving community safety.

The issue hits close to Biden’s heart; he and Senator Barbara Boxer co-authored the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) back in 1994. Biden and Boxer condemned the lethargic response from police and prosecutors as well as the skewed attitudes toward violence against women in general.

History has shown a correlation between testing backlogged SAKs and convictions. New York was the first state to eliminate its backlog, testing 17,000 SAKs between 2000 and 2003. It resulted in 49 indictments. The grants will not only prevent future rapes but will give thousands of women across the country the justice they deserve.

Related Legislation

Over the last five years, Congress has passed several laws to address SAK backlogs across the country. The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to eligible states in regards to SAK backlogs. The grants are specifically aimed toward the collection, analysis, and indexing of DNA samples in CODIS as well as for increasing state and local lab capacitates. To receive such grants, states must adhere to certain provisions, including the timely delivery of tested SAKs.

In 2013, President Obama signed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. It was the third time the act has been reauthorized. Among other things, the reauthorization addressed new provisions to tackle the rape kit backlog across the country. First, it amended the aforementioned Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 by increasing audit requirements for SAK backlogs, increasing grants, and increasing state and local lab capacities. It expanded the focus of VAWA grants to include fortifying law enforcement and forensic response. The act also required states to minimally allocate “20 percent of funds within the STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) program and 25 percent of funds within the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforce Protection Orders program be directed to programs that meaningfully address sexual assault.”

More than ever, states are dedicated to ending their respective SAK backlogs. Colorado, Illinois, and Ohio have all passed legislation to reduce backlogs. Arkansas, Kentucky, Virginia, and Louisiana passed legislation that requires an inventory of untested SAKs. California and Michigan enacted guidelines for processing evidence derived from SAKs. Texas allocated $10.8 million to untested SAKs in its 2014-15 state budget. It is also within a state’s jurisdiction to define statutes of limitation. Some advocates fight for the clock on statutes of limitations to start only once a SAK has been tested, as addressed in this video.

Proponents of this change argue that rapists should never benefit from a SAK that remained untested for so long that the respective crime exceeded a statute of limitation law.

Conclusion

It seems like a number of things need to come together to eradicate the backlog nationwide. For the most effective standards, the United States needs a uniform system of analyzing and indexing evidence in addition to regularly trained teams of trained nurses, doctors, law enforcement, and prosecutors. Funding is also necessary to allow all the different parts of the process to come together effectively. The recent $80 million investment in SAK testing can bring justice and closure to thousands of women.

Resources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: Violence Against Women Act

DOJ: Unanalyzed Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases

Additional

EndtheBacklog: Defining the Rape Kit Backlog

EndtheBacklog: State Respones

EndtheBacklog: What is a Rape Kit and Rape Kit Exam?

EndtheBacklog: Where the Backlog Exists

Govtrack: Summaries for the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000

Huffington Post: Joe Biden, Loretta Lynch Pledge Millions To Resolve Rape Kit Backlog

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control: Statistics about Sexual Violence

NRC on Domestic Violence: The Effectiveness of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Programs

Time: Authorities Invest $80 Million in Ending the Rape Kit Backlog

Time: Here’s What Happens When You Get a Rape Kit Exam

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rape Kits: New Funding to Bring Victims Justice appeared first on Law Street.

The European migrant crisis isn’t going away anytime soon. Although it has only recently become a hot topic, the number of migrants passing into Europe has been on the rise for the past five years. After a storm of tragedies this summer, the EU’s immigration problem has become an important issue for Europe and even the United States. Unfortunately, it has been a season of all questions and few answers. But recently, European leaders have shown some willingness to address the issue.

Recent Tragedies

On August 28, the bodies of 71 smuggled migrants were found in the back of an abandoned truck near Vienna, Austria. The victims included 59 men, eight women, and four children. This incident led to a strong backlash against human traffickers. Austria’s interior minister, Johanna Mikl-Leitner, released a statement saying, “This tragedy is a concern for us all. Smugglers are criminals. They have no interest in the welfare of refugees. Only profit.” Around the same time, a fishing boat and smaller boat sank off the coast of Libya, claiming the lives of approximately 150 migrants.

On September 2, the lifeless body of 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi was found by a Turkish policeman on the shore of Bodrum, Turkey. The Dogan News Agency captured the scene. An image of the Kurdish toddler face down in the sand instantly went viral– resonating with people around the world. Aylan Kurdi’s body was found after boats sank off the coast of the Greek Island of Kos. His five-year-old brother and mother were also among the dead. Teema Kurdi, his aunt, applied to sponsor the family’s entry to Canada, but was denied due to missing documents.

On the same day, September 2, migrants trying to cross from Greece to Macedonia clashed with police at the border. The police, permitting groups of 50 people at a time, inadvertently separated loved ones. In a panic, migrants rushed the border resulting in a scene of chaos. The confrontation is only the latest of several clashes at the Greece-Macedonia border.

Where are the Refugees and Migrants Coming From?

So far, 2,800 people have died in the Mediterranean this year while attempting to make it to Europe. Why are so many people putting their lives at such risk?

The Middle East

Syria has, by far, the largest dispersed population trying to find shelter in EU countries. As many as 4.1 million Syrians have fled the country since the start of its civil war in 2011 and another 7.6 million are displaced, but remain within the country’s borders. Syrians account for a little over half of the 381,000 migrants and refugees that made it to Europe this year. The EU had an estimated 210,000 asylum applications from Syrian nationals between July 2014 and July 2015.

Large areas of Syria are under the control of the Islamic State, which has further displaced a large portion of Syrians. The overwhelming amount of violence and instability in the country has caused hundreds of thousands of Syrians to leave their homes. ISIS controls several large cities in both Syria and Iraq, including Raqqa, Fallujah, Ramadi, and Mosul.

The two other countries from the Middle East that contribute to the migrant crisis are Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which are undergoing violent conflict. According to the latest figures, 32,581 Afghans traveled to the European Union through the East Mediterranean and 29,245 Afghans traveled through the West Balkans in 2015. Even though Iraqis only account for four percent of the influx of immigrants into the EU, the number is on the rise.

Africa

A large portion of the migrants leaving Africa come from Eritrea, where the oppressive rule by President Isaias Afwerki has caused hundreds of thousands of Eritreans to leave their homes. A recent report from the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea found that an estimated 5,000 Eritreans leave the country each month.

Most other African immigrants come from Somalia as well as several countries on the west coast–including Nigeria, Gambia, and Senegal. In 2014, 80 percent of African immigrants choose Libya as a gateway to the EU. The road is extremely dangerous–filled with kidnappers, corrupt smugglers, and inadequate transportation. Some boats aren’t even designed to make it all the way to their destinations but embark hoping that a merchant ship, fishing boat, or Coast Guard from an EU country will find them.

Refugee vs. Migrant

Migrants must first make the perilous journey to the EU, but then what happens when they arrive at its door? Upon arrival, migrants cannot simply walk in; they must go through a legal process before entering.

According the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, a refugee is a person, “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” For example, Syrians and Eritreans can most easily make the case for refugee status due to, respectively, the Syrian civil war and the Afwerki regime.

Refugee status is vital. Under this protection, a person can apply for political asylum or protected status according to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Even more importantly, once someone reaches Europe and is granted refugee status, he or she cannot be forced back to his or her original country. This is a pivotal point in international law.

The term migrant is more inclusive and is applied to anyone traveling to another country for any other reason than escaping political persecution and war. Migrants often seek better opportunities by leaving impoverished countries, but they aren’t offered the same protection as refugees. Governments are legally allowed to deport migrants without legal papers.

The influx of people arriving in Europe today are mostly refugees, but not all. Both refugees and migrants take the same dangerous routes, often at the hands of human traffickers.

Where are the Migrants and Refugees Going?

381,000 refugees and migrants have reached Europe so far this year, but the distribution among EU countries is unequal. Many pass through Greece and Italy temporarily on their way to a further destination. 244,000 migrants and refugees have landed in Greece this year, almost two-thirds of the total that have reached Europe.

Among all EU countries, Germany has seen the highest number of asylum applications. This year, between January and June, Germany had 154,000 migrants seeking asylum, more than twice the number during the same period last year. The other countries receiving a relatively high number of asylum applications are France, Sweden, Turkey, Italy, and Hungary.

The situation has caused significant problems for many EU countries. According to the New York Times, there have been over 200 direct attacks on migrants in Germany this year. Violence from locals in Italy forced police to evacuate refugees and migrants at its reception centers. Hungary built an 110-mile razor-wire fence along its border with Serbia to keep refugees and migrants out. Hungary also shut down a major train station in Budapest, stopping asylum seekers trying to travel to Germany and Austria.

Greece, which is going through its own financial crisis, is struggling to provide assistance in its overwhelmed reception centers. Macedonia was forced to declare a state of emergency on August 20 in order to try and stabilize its border regions.

Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey feel the strain on their resources more than most as neighboring countries of Syria. Jordan currently hosts more than 630,000 Syrian refugees, in addition to others from Palestine and Iraq. The unemployment in Jordan has increased sharply and locals fear future consequences of more refugees. Lebanon is in the middle of its own political crisis and now has one refugee for every four people. Although Turkey has the strongest economy in the region, the massive influx of refugees is beginning to deplete available resources. Together, the three countries host more than four million Syrians.

According to the European Union’s Dublin regulation, the first country that a migrant steps foot on must take responsibility for him or her. Naturally, southern countries, like Italy, claim they suffer the worst of the burden; however, Germany, France, and Britain claim most of the migrants continue to their lands.

Many migrants avoid staying in the first country of entry, seeking a secondary country deeper in Europe in violation of the Dublin regulation. This creates a challenge for the European Union because once a person is inside the EU, they can freely travel between member-states in the Schengen zone. This area consists of 26 EU countries that have eliminated border controls.

What’s the Solution?

Previous attempts at solving the crisis have been relatively fruitless. In June, EU leaders shot down the first quota system initiative in favor of having countries voluntarily accept refugees and migrants. The initial summit, held in Brussels, dedicated more time to trying to stop illegal migration, rather than determining the best way to handle the influx of asylum seekers. By July, the EU announced it had fallen short of its voluntary distribution goals by 8,000 people, and the numbers have only increased. Additionally, some blame popular nationalist and anti-immigration platforms, which are increasingly gaining traction in the EU, for various countries’ unwillingness to provide aid.

However, European Union leaders are currently working on a new plan to more equitably distribute migrants throughout the region. Each EU country will be designated a certain number of refugees to host based on a 160,000 total. Greece, Hungary, and Italy will be exempt from the system since each country already hosts so many refugees. Britain, Ireland, and Demark are also exempt from European asylum policies based on the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. Several countries, most notably Germany, have independently announced that they will increase the number of migrants that they will accept. While these announcements are a step in the right direction, most leaders acknowledge that an EU-wide system is necessary to appropriately deal with the issue.

U.S. Involvement

Up until September, the U.S. has been silent on the resettlement issue. Although the U.S. has been a leader in providing financial aid to Syria, it has only taken in 1,500 Syrians since the start of the war. President Obama recently made headlines by pledging to house 10,000 Syrians in the upcoming fiscal year, beginning in October.

Conclusion

Clearly, the EU needs a united, comprehensive plan; the situation cannot remain as it is. Countries like Turkey and Italy will soon burn out their resources completely. Helping refugees isn’t any one country’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the world. The ongoing summit will be crucial in deciding the fate of so many. And it is high time the United States got involved. America is a global leader in humanitarian assistance and needs to contribute its fair share. The welcoming of 10,000 refugees is an important step.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

UN Refugee Agency: Syria Regional Refugee Response

UN Refugee Agency: Refugees/Migrants Emergency Response – Mediterranean

Additional

NPR: The Migrant Crisis, By The Numbers 

The Economist: Everything You Want to Know about Migration Across the Mediterranean

BBC: The Lisbon Treaty

BBC: Syria Iraq

BBC: Why is EU Struggling With Migrants and Asylum?

Brookings: Why 100,000s of Syrian Refugees are Fleeing to Europe 

CFR: Europe’s Migration Crisis

CNN: Eating Toothpaste, Avoiding Gangs: Why Migrants Head to Mediterranean

The Guardian: European Leaders Scrap Plans for Migrant Quota System

The Guardian: Hungarian Police Arrest Driver of Lorry that had 71 Dead Migrants Inside

The New York Times: About 150 Migrants Feared Dead After Boats Sink Off Libya

The New York Times: Eritrea

The New York Times: Migrant or Refugee? There Is a Difference, With Legal Implications

The New York Times: Obama Increases Number of Syrian Refugees for U.S. Resettlement to 10,000

The New York Times: Which Countries Are Under the Most
Strain in the European Migration Crisis?

Time: Migrants Rush Macedonian Border as Chaos Separates Families

UNHCR: The 1951 Refugee Convention

The Washington Post: Iraqis join an intensifying flow of refugees to Europe from Turkey

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to correct the location of cities controlled by the Islamic State as well as the location of African countries where migrants have fled.

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Migrant Crisis Continues: What’s Going on in Europe? appeared first on Law Street.

The idea of child labor in the United States sounds absurd. It’s 2015, after all. But the truth is that it’s more common than you may think, especially in the agriculture industry. The U.S. government currently has exemptions in place for the minimum age and maximum work hour requirements for child farmworkers. Hazardous work is prohibited until 18 in other industries, but notable exemptions exist for agricultural companies. Child farmworkers have high rates of injury, are exposed to serious health risks, and often receive few protections, particularly on tobacco farms. Read on to learn more about dangerous, but legal, child labor in the United States.

What is the Current Federal Law?

Loopholes in child labor laws for the agriculture industry stem from the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), last revised in 2007. For all nonagricultural sectors, the FLSA restricts the hours children under 16 can work and prohibits children under 18 from work that is considered dangerous. In those industries, for example, children cannot work more than three hours on school days or more than eight hours on nonschool days.

However, the rules are far more lenient for the agriculture industry. Children under 16 cannot work during school hours, but there are no maximum hour limits beyond that. There is also no limit for working after school or on weekends, and there is essentially no limit for child workers during the summer. Some states place additional hour restrictions on child employment in agriculture.

At age 16, children can perform hazardous work, like operating chainsaws, forklifts, forage harvesters, or power post hole diggers. They can work from a ladder or scaffolding at over 20 feet from the ground and may drive a tractor over 20 PTO horsepower. They can also handle or apply toxic agricultural chemicals and may also handle or use a blasting agent (i.e. dynamite, black powder).

With parental consent, children under 12 can work on farms where workers are exempt from federal minimum wage requirements. Children aged 12 and 13 can be employed with parental consent or on a farm where a parent or guardian is also working. At 14, children can work any agricultural occupation not deemed hazardous by the Secretary of Labor and 16-year-olds can engage in any agricultural occupation, even during school hours. Children of any age may be employed on a farm in any occupation at any time if a parent or guardian owns the business.

Minors do not need working paper or work-permits. Farm workers under 20 years old can be paid $4.25 an hour during the first consecutive 90 calendar days of employment. Lastly, farmworkers of all ages are not subject to the overtime provisions in the FLSA.

Tobacco Farms

In 2014, Human Rights Watch (HRW) conducted a survey, which found that child laborers on tobacco farms face harsh conditions and receive little protections. According to HRW, 90 percent of American tobacco is cultivated in Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Although exact numbers remain unknown, thousands of child laborers work on these fields every year. Ohio Rep. Mary Kaptur and several British Members of Parliament toured a North Carolina tobacco farm last year. An article from The Hill summarized the report from their visit noting the “squalid conditions, lack of sanitation, hot water, flushing toilets and basic health services” that tobacco farm workers face. According to the HRW report, child laborers often work 50 to 60 hours a week in bad conditions and extreme heat.

Injury Risks

Machinery poses a real risk to child farmworkers. According to a 2013 study from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the agriculture industry accounts for the largest number of work-related deaths. NIOSH reported that the fatality rate for child farm workers is four times greater than that of any other industry and that two-thirds of farm deaths occurred among children 16 years old and under. According to the study:

Young worker deaths in agriculture are noteworthy. In addition to accounting for the largest number of deaths of any industry, previous research has suggested that the fatality rate is about four times greater than for youth working in other industries [Barkume et. al. 2000, Hard and Myers 2006] and comparable to the risk for young and middle-aged workers in agriculture. Nearly 2/3rds of the deaths in agriculture occurred among youth less than 16 years of age [Windau and Meyer 2005]. Nearly 60% of the deaths of youth in agriculture occurred on family farms. Farm family workers accounted for nearly 25% of all young worker deaths from 1998 to 2002.

Human Rights Watch also reported that more than 1,800 children working on farms in 2012 received non-fatal injuries from  sharp tools and machines. In 2010, two teenagers died trapped in a grain bin. One 16-year-old Tennessee worker, interviewed by Human Rights Watch, remembered an incident saying, “I cut myself with the hatchet.… I probably hit a vein or something because it wouldn’t stop bleeding and I had to go to the hospital…. My foot was all covered in blood.” Another 16-year-old said that he lost two fingers in an accident involving a mower.

Health Risks

Another alarming aspect is the health risks that workers on tobacco fields may encounter. Child laborers under 16 may be free from operating the most dangerous machinery, but they are exposed to toxic pesticides and risk nicotine poisoning. You have to be at least 18 to buy cigarettes, but not to cultivate tobacco. According to Margaret Wurth from Human Rights Watch, “as the school year ends, children are heading into the tobacco fields, where they can’t avoid being exposed to dangerous nicotine, without smoking a single cigarette.”

Child laborers interviewed by Human Rights Watch also reported working while nearby field were sprayed with chemicals. These pesticides can cause cancer, damage to the nervous system, and issues with reproductive health. Public health experts  have linked nicotine exposure in adolescents with mood disorders and permanent cognitive deficits.

A number of the children interviewed by HRW exhibited signs of acute nicotine poisoning, also known as Green Tobacco Sickness. Side effects include nausea, vomiting, dizziness, headaches, loss of appetite, and sleeplessness. Others also reported difficulty breathing, skin rashes, and irritations to the mouth and eyes.

What is being done?

Recent attempts at reform have been futile. Although countries across the globe, like Brazil and India, prohibit children under the age of 18 to work on tobacco fields, the United States does not.

In 2011, during President Obama’s first term, former Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis proposed banning workers under the age of 16 in the tobacco fields–ridding the FLAS of many of its exemptions. Her plan included stricter regulations for “agricultural work with animals, pesticides, timber, manure pits, and storage bins.” It also proposed safety measures for young farmworkers.

However, powerful opposition from farm conglomerates emerged. Montana Representative Denny Rehberg lamented the consequences when “big-city bureaucrats try to craft policies for rural America.” Farmers also complained that it would prevent their children from contributing to chores, even though Solis suggested an exception regarding farmers’ children. State legislators responded by drafting bills asking respective Congressional delegates to oppose the proposed changes to child labor exemptions. The successful lobbying campaign resulted in all the proposals being dropped and the Obama administration promising to abandon the issue indefinitely.

Another legislative attempt to help child laborers is Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard’s Children’s Act for Responsible Employment (CARE Act). Initially introduced in 2001, the CARE Act has been reintroduced in several sessions of Congress over the past decade, most recently in June. The CARE Act standardizes child labor protection in agriculture with every other industry.

Not only would the CARE Act revise current child labor law exemptions, it would increase and establish criminal penalties for child labor violations. The bill currently sits in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

The Children Don’t Belong on Tobacco Farms Act, co-authored by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline, is the most recent attempt to alter the current laws. Although the bill doesn’t prohibit children from tobacco fields, it limits the type of work that can be performed. Children under eighteen would be banned from direct contact with tobacco plants or dried tobacco leaves. Like other legislation attempting to reform these laws, the bill has not moved past its assigned committee.

Conclusion

The evidence shows that dangerous child labor conditions are not exclusively third world problem– it is prevalent here in the United States. Although multiple attempts at reform have been made, they have either failed or stalled in Congress. Significant progress could also be made without major changes to existing laws. Removing exemptions for the agriculture industry could create uniform standards for the employment of children in all industries. However, such efforts seem unlikely to succeed as powerful interests have managed to block recent efforts.

Resources

Primary

Human Rights Watch: Child Workers in Danger on Tobacco Farms

U.S. Department of Labor: Child Labor Requirements In Agricultural Occupations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

Trade Union Group: A Smokescreen for Slavery

Additional

The Atlantic: How Common Is Child Labor in the U.S.?

CNS News: Farm State Outrage Intensifies Over Labor Dept. Proposal to Ban Children From Doing Some Chores on Farms 

Congress.gov: CARE Act of 2013

The Hill: Back to School – Or Back to the Fields? 

The Hill: Democrats Want Children Off Tobacco Farms

The Nation: Child Labor in the USA

NCBI: Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Nicotine Exposure during Adolescence for Prefrontal Cortex Neuronal Network Function

NIOSH: Health and Safety of Young Workers

The United States Department of Labor: US Labor Department Proposes Updates to Child Labor Regulations

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to clarify the history of the CARE Act.

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do Child Farm Workers Have Enough Protections? appeared first on Law Street.

Two incredible women made history when they passed the Army’s elite Ranger School last Friday. Rangers make up an exceptionally trained unit of the Army comparable to the Navy SEALs. The graduation re-sparked the national debate over the ability of women to take on combat roles. To be clear, today women are located on the front-line, but some positions are still off-limits. Critics call the practice unfair and sexist while supporters dismiss those labels entirely. Is the current system in place justifiable? Or should women be given the opportunity to fill any position?

In Today’s News

Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver are the first female soldiers to graduate Ranger School–one of the most grueling training courses that the Army has to offer. The Pentagon describes Ranger School as “the Army’s premier combat leadership course, teaching Ranger students how to overcome fatigue, hunger, and stress to lead Soldiers during small unit combat operations.”

Army Rangers are trained to lead soldiers on difficult combat-related missions. They are specifically trained for close combat and direct-fire battles. Candidates must pass three phases of Ranger School: Crawl, Walk, and Run. The Crawl phase, lasting 20 days, focuses on physical and mental development. The Walk phase, lasting 21 days, is conducted in the mountains and focuses on military mountaineering tasks. And the Run phase further develops combat-arms functional skills under extremely stressful environments.

When the class began in April, there were 381 men and 19 women. The class finished, 62 days later, down to 94 men and two women. Each graduate had to pass a physical fitness test that requires:

Forty-nine pushups, 59 situps, a 5-mile run in 40 minutes, six chin-ups, a swim test, a land navigation test, a 12-mile foot march in three hours, several obstacle courses, four days of military mountaineering, three parachute jumps, four air assaults on helicopters and 27 days of mock combat patrols.

On a trial basis, this was the first year that the Army allowed women to participate in Ranger School. Although they could train, Capt. Griest and Lt. Haver still cannot apply to the 75^th Ranger Regiment with their fellow classmates. A follow-up decision on the specific roles that women can have in combat is expected by the end of the year. In 2013, the U.S. Military officially lifted the 1994 ban on women in combat roles. In addition, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta initiated a three-year project in 2012 calling for all branches to fully integrate women in combat roles by 2016, or request a special exception.

Statistics

Despite the ban for certain combat roles, women served on the war front in Iraq and Afghanistan. Women can hold jobs on gun crews, air crews, and in seamanship specialties. U.S. military women accounted for 67 combat deaths in Iraq and 33 in Afghanistan; those wars also saw more than 600 and 300 female injuries, respectively. Two military women were held prisoner in Desert Storm and three in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Regardless of the post, women are integral to the U.S. military. According to statistics from 2011, more than 200,000 women served in active military duty, including 69 generals and admirals. Women account for 14.5 percent of the military’s active armed forces. There are 74,000 women in the Army, 53,000 in the Navy, 62,000 in the Air Force and 14,000 in the Marine Corps. Women account for 10.5 percent of the Coast Guard as well.

Women are represented in leadership positions as well. Women make up roughly 14 percent of the enlisted ranks and 16.6 percent of the officer corps. More than seven percent of all generals and admirals are women–with 28 generals in the Air Force, 19 in the Army, one in the Marine Corps, and 21 admirals in the Navy. Nearly 20 percent of female enlisted reservists and National Guard officers are women. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, there were 1,853,690 female veterans in the United States as of September 2011.

Arguments against Full Female Integration

Strength

The main argument against expanding the role of women to new combat positions focuses on their physical capabilities. Many critics argue that their opinions have nothing to do with sexism and that they have the fullest respect for women in the armed forces. But when it comes down to it, women are not as strong as men. Male muscles and bones are denser. Critics argue that the endangerment of team members isn’t worth the military being politically correct. As Brig. Gen. George Smith explained on “60 Minutes,” “The realities of combat aren’t going to change based on gender.”

In 2012, the Marine Corps opened its Infantry Officer Course to women on a trial basis, which is similar to the Ranger training. While 29 women have attempted the course, none have passed so far. Only four women passed the combat endurance test held on the first day. This includes, for example, a 25-foot rope climb with a heavy backpack full of gear. You must reach the top to pass. An imbalance in strength allows for differences between men and women in the Marine Corps basic physical fitness test. For example, a woman can perform fewer pull-ups than her male counterpart. Today 45 percent of female Marines can complete three pull-ups, the requirement for male testing.

Standards

The standards are high, and that is yet another argument against full integration. If you lower the standards to allow women to pass, you elevate the risk in the field. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey, the nation’s top military officer, started to question these high standards two years ago. He claimed,

If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?

In other words, the Marine Corps Officer Course, along with other courses of similar intensity, will now have to justify current standards. However, there are those that don’t accept that argument. Retired Marine Corps Officer Dakota Wood believes they have “decades of experience on which to base requirements.”

Medical Concerns

Women have time and time again proved their worth on the front-line. They have exhibited poise and efficiency under fire. A main concern, however, is longevity. Capt. Katie Petronio, a former combat engineer officer on deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, returned from deployment with new concerns about women in combat zones. She asks,

Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?…Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the -specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

With a similar viewpoint, Retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant Jessie Jane Duff links the ban on women in combat roles to women in the NFL. She told Business Insider:

There’s simply too great a disparity in body mass and strength between NFL players and women, and the physical demands are too great… Currently, women have higher rates of discharge for medical disability that prevents them from finishing their enlistment, or re-enlistment. Stress and muscular deterioration in women come on faster and harder due to the heavy gear and physical duress in the field environment.

Put simply, physical deterioration ultimately occurs more in woman than it does in men.

Arguments for Full Female Integration

When it comes to strength and standards, the counterargument seems obvious: keep the standards universal. If you don’t lower the standards and keep everything even for men and women, then that should silence critics at least against the physical arguments. Keeping standards high will remove sex from the equation.

Even though no women have passed the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course, 150 women did graduate from the Marine Corps Infantry Training Battalion Course at the School of Infantry in North Carolina. These women passed with the same standards as the men. Marine Corps Spokeswoman, Capt. Maureen Krebs explained that even though basic physical fitness tests may allow different expectations, they are “separate from standards that must be met for a particular occupation, such as infantry, where women must achieve the same as men.” In other words, everyone meets the same standards to graduate.

Although a woman hasn’t yet passed the Officer Course, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. Allowing women to perform any combat role doesn’t provide a free pass. A woman will have to earn it like any male counterpart. That could still mean zero female Marine Corps Officers, for example, but at least they get a shot at it. As for medial concerns, extra pre-training for muscle building can be required to reduce female injury rates.

Conclusion

The two women who graduated from Ranger School certainly reignited the debate, but it’s been a controversial conversation that has existed for years. Both sides have sticking points to their arguments, but there is a resolution in sight. The Pentagon will release a final statement settling the issue after careful analysis of the research, perhaps solving the question once and for all.

 Resources

Primary

Pew Research Center: Women in the Military

USArmy: Ranger School

Additional

Business Insider: There’s A Big Unknown About Putting The Female Body In Combat

CNN: History in the Making

The Washington Times: Pressure Grows on Marines to Consider Lowering Combat Standards for Women

The Guardian: Women in Combat

Marine Times: Need to Know, 2015

SistersinArms: Women in Combat Pros and Cons

StatisticBrain: Women in the Military Statistics

CNN: By the Numbers

The Washington Post: Women now 0 for 29 in attempting Marine Infantry Officer Course

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Women in Combat Debate Continued: Should Every Door be Opened? appeared first on Law Street.

The South and East China Seas conflicts are suddenly dominating the news. Multiple countries are claiming ownership over a number of islands in the South and East China Seas–and the debate has gone international, even involving the U.S. But why does the United States even care who owns these islands? Read on to learn about why these islands and territories are so important, and why we should all be paying attention to this conflict.

A History of Conflict

What is under dispute?

The islands under question are located in the East and South China seas. China claims about 90 percent of the South China Sea, including those islands. But along with China, the Philippines and Vietnam both claim the Paracels and Spratley Islands. China and the Philippines both claim the Scarborough Shoal. And Malaysia and Brunei also claim disputed maritime territory in the South China Sea as well.

The East China Sea Conflict revolves around a group of five inhabited islets named the Diaoyu Islands according to China or the Senkaku Islands according to Japan. Taiwan, along with China and Japan, also claims these islands in the East China Sea, although China also claims Taiwan.

South China Sea 

China’s claims in the South China Sea base from ancient times. China documents territorial rights from the Xia and Han dynasties. China uses a map with a nine-dash line to chart its territories that include 291 islands and reefs in the area. The nine-dash line was formulated in China by the nationalist Kuomintang party in 1947 and is still used in China’s maps today.

But other countries don’t agree. Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines all have a military presence on at least some of the islands in the region as well. But it is really in the last eighteen months that China’s massive construction has started to spark tensions higher than ever.

East China Sea

The beginning of the East China Sea Conflict can be dated back to the end of the first Sino-Japanese War in the 1890s, fought between China and Japan over Korea. In defeat, China ceded a number of territories to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. China claims the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands were a part of this cession, although there is no mention of the islands specifically in the treaty. Japan claims to have had them all along, since it discovered and annexed the lands in 1895. In 1937, Japan invaded China and fortified its military strength. This time period really honed the bad blood between Japan and China, as the Chinese people suffered gravely. After WWII, China demanded the islands back, even though China never actually controlled the islands and they were now under U.S. control. When the United States finally left the islands in 1972, post WWII, the Japanese government resumed control. Whether the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands were ceded to Taiwan or considered part of Okinawa (remaining with Japan) remains a heated point of debate today.

What’s so special about these islands?

When it comes to the South China Sea, it all boils down to economics. The area is home to an abundance of natural resources, fertile fishing grounds, and “the world’s most dynamic economies.” The South China Sea holds vital global trade routes, especially for oil. The dominant country in the region, China, could control trade shipments from all over East and Southeast Asia and control foreign military access. The South China Sea conducts $5.3 trillion in total trade each year. There are 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic of feet of natural gas in the South China Sea. If that isn’t enough, 90 percent of Middle Eastern fossil fuel exports are expected to pass through Asia by 2035.

The conflict over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands is a little more complicated. Presumed oil and gas reserves are important factors. But the conflict is also a bit more symbolic–China is now the big man on campus, and wants to show its strength. Nationalism and honor play big parts on this side of the maritime conflicts. Old wounds are not forgotten. “Maritime disputes suggest that China’s rise is not going to be without its frictions,” says Council on Foreign Relations Director for Asia Studies Elizabeth Economy, “That is many instances China feels that its economic throw weight really does give it a greater stance and a greater ability to assert its interests, in some cases to reform norms, and in some cases to upend them.”

Recent Developments

In recent news, the conflicts are heating up due to China’s major building. In the last eighteen months, China has created more “new island surface” than all the other countries involved combined, amassing to about 2,000 acres. Although China already started land reclamation in controversial areas close to the Spratly Islands last year, this recent action is on a whole other scale. China has placed military equipment such as military airfields and motorized artillery pieces on the man-made islands and plans to continue that action in the future.

China isn’t the only one building however. Similar actions have been taken by Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia on much smaller scales. For example, in 2008, Taiwan completed a 3,900 foot land strip on the Itu Aba, part of the Spratley Islands, fit for search and rescue missions and military aircrafts. In a more recent example, Malaysian Defense Minister Hishamuddin Hussein announced a plan in 2013 to place a marine corps on a yet to be created naval base on Bintulu in Sarawak.

U.S. Involvement

The major concern for Americans is a conflict between the U.S. and China. Conflict amongst the Asia-Pacific countries can easily bring in the U.S. We have a stake in the trade markets and no interest in allowing China to control the region and our allies like Japan.

This month Secretary of State John Kerry met with China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, in Malaysia. Kerry pressed for China to immediately halt “problematic actions” and expressed concern for the “militarization of features there.” After the meeting, Kerry was optimistic to other diplomats and called the conversation a “good meeting.” Kerry stated, “We want to ensure the security of critical sea lanes and fishing grounds, and we want to see that disputes in the area are managed peacefully and on the basis of international law.” Still points of contention remained. Although Wang promised to stop land reclamation, he did not promise China would vacate current projects .

This previous May, a U.S. surveillance plane flew over some of the contested waters. The flight was conducted in order to apparently “make clear the U.S. does not recognize China’s territorial claims.” The Chinese sent eight warning against the aircraft from an island over 600 miles away from the Chinese coast. The warning made clear that China considers the area its jurisdiction.

Kerry and Wang were in Malaysia for a meeting held by ASEAN, a 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations. China and ASEAN previously agreed to negotiate a “code of conduct” regarding the disputed regions. But ASEAN secretary general, Le Luong Minh, is not happy with the progress. ASEAN calls for an earlier resolve of the “code of conduct” and for China to stop all building.

Conclusion

We haven’t seen the last of the arguments over the islands in the East and South China Seas. While the conflict may have served as a show of strength between the United States and China, it also involved many other nations that continue to have influence in the region. Moreover, given other extenuating factors like the Trans-Pacific Partnership debacle, the Chinese-American relationship may definitely be heading toward icy waters. Whether or not that will affect the disputes in the East and South China Sea will have to be seen.

Resources

CFR: China’s Maritime Disputes

Associated Press: ASEAN wants China to stop work in disputed sea

CNN: China Warns U.S. Surveillance Plane

The Economist: Who really owns the Senkaku islands? 

The New York Times: Kerry Urges Beijing to Halt Actions in South China Sea

Reuters: Everything you need to know about the South China Sea conflict

The Wall Street Journal: China to Build Military Facilities on South China Sea Islets

The Washington Post: China is not the only country reclaiming land in South China Sea

The Washington Post: Tension with China loom larger as Obama prepares to welcome Xi Jinping

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The South and East China Seas: Conflict Continues appeared first on Law Street.

Does society perpetuate rape culture? Sadly, this idea has been proven over and over again. We keep asking the question and receiving the same answer: Yes. We saw it in the case of Bill Cosby. It took evidence of Bill Cosby blatantly admitting his crimes before a majority of the public believed he was guilty of raping and drugging women. For some people, it was just easier to believe the victims wanted their 15 minutes of fame than admit that the previously beloved actor committed such crimes. We saw it again in the protection of reality TV personality Josh Duggar it was revealed that he had a history of molesting girls including his sisters, and in the December retraction of Rolling Stone’s UVA campus gang rape story. The latest news brings us another story involving an alleged rape accusation: the Daily Beast reported on July 27 that Ivana Trump, ex-wife of  Donald Trump, accused him of rape during their marriage over 30 years ago. The controversy brings light to a highly controversial issue: marital rape. Even today there are still those who deny you can rape a spouse. So exactly what is the history and legality of marital rape in the United States?

Marital Rape in the News

According to the Daily Beast,  during the Trumps’ divorce proceedings Ivana claimed Donald raped her. She later clarified that she felt “violated” by the incident, rather than raped “in the criminal sense.” She further elaborated, “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape…’” Terms of the couple’s divorce agreement prohibit her from speaking on the marriage unless authorized by Donald himself. The Daily Beast cites a 1990 deposition from the Trumps’ divorce as well as the book “Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump.”

After becoming aware of the report, Ivana labeled the story “totally without merit” in a statement to CNN. She also called her ex-husband and her “best friends” and remarked that Trump would make “an incredible president.” The authenticity of the story is in question. Ivana is denying it. The Daily Beast calls her recent statements ironic as the story is written “based on her own words.”

Regardless if Ivana’s words were misinterpreted or she is dishonestly recanting a story, the means by which Donald’s lawyer Michael Cohen responded to the allegations is appalling and shocking. Cohen threatened Daily Beast reporter Tim Mask and denied the existence of marital rape itself.

You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up … for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet … you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it…You’re talking about the front-runner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as a private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.

Contrary to Trump’s lawyer’s statement, one can rape a spouse. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws barring nonconsensual sex with a spouse.

What is Marital Rape?

While rape is all non-consensual sexual intercourse, marital rape is specifically between spouses. It has been illegal in all 50 states and Washington D.C. since 1993. Before then, “marital exemption” allowed a person to a rape a spouse without fear of legal repercussions. Every state had a “marital exemption” law until 1975 when South Dakota became the first state to drop it. North Carolina was the last.  Its elimination is chiefly thanks to the women’s rights and equality movement. However, it is still significantly harder to prove marital rape than rape by any other.

Statistics

According to HealthResearchFunding.org, 30 percent of adult rape cases were committed by a husband, common-law partner, or boyfriend, while 29 percent of all sexual assaults were perpetrated by a husband or lover. When there is a precedent of domestic violence in a marriage, the chance for marital rape increases by 70 percent. Only around 3.2 percent of victimized women report the crime when it is committed by someone they know. An alarming 69 percent of women who’ve endured spousal rape will be raped more than once. Lastly, 18 percent of spousal victims claim their children saw the incident.

Cases of Opposition to Marital Rape

You would think, at least since 1993, that the door is closed on the validity of the existence of marital rape, but somehow, it still seems to be a gray area where it should be black and white: non-consensual sex is always wrong. Trump’s lawyer’s remarks are just the latest in a history of disturbing events.

Michigan 1987

Michigan resident Rosanna Hawkins was attacked and raped by her estranged husband, armed with a six-inch knife. She filed for divorce a month before the incident and had been staying with her sister. The attacker, Eugene, was sentenced by Oceana County Circuit Court to 27 to 92 years in prison. However, in a 3 to 0 vote, the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in 1987.

Why? At the time, Michigan only recognized marital rape as a crime if the husband and wife were living apart and one member had filed for divorce. The court also required that a person live in the state for at least six months before filing for divorce. In Hawking’s case, she had only returned to Michigan a week before she filed, deeming it invalid.

Virginia 2002

In a 2002 legislative debate, Virginia delegate Dick Black stated,

I don’t know how on earth you could validly get a conviction in a husband-wife rape when they’re living together, sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie and so forth. There’s no injury, there’s no separation, or anything.

If she says no, it doesn’t matter where she is sleeping or what she is wearing. This is the same man who called birth control “baby pesticides” in 2004.

Indiana 2014

Fast forward to the current day. David Wise repeatedly drugged and raped his wife, Mandy Boardman, for years during their marriage. Boardman’s suspicions were confirmed when she found video on Wise’s cellphone. She went to the police in May 2011. After the ensuing trial, a jury convicted Wise of six felony sexual assault charges. He had told the jury that, “She was snippy and it made her nicer when he drugged her.” The prosecutor asked for a 40-year prison sentence.

Wise will not spend one day in jail. Marion Superior County Judge Kurt Eisgruber sentenced Wise to 20 years, with eight years suspended and 12 years spent in home confinement. It only gets worse. Boardman told The Times “[The judge] told me I needed to forgive my attacker and I needed to let my attacker walk. It was a punch to the gut from the justice system …”

What are the Laws Regarding Marital Rape?

As previously stated, marital rape is illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Generally speaking, marital rape is penalized like a rape committed by any other person. Fines can range between several thousand dollars to over $50,000. Prison terms also range from several years to life in prison without parole. Often, sentences are based on the violence of the crime. Surprisingly enough, there are still certain states that have variances in the law regarding spousal rape compared to other types of rape. In some states, marital rape is charged under a different section of criminal code, given shorter reporting periods, held to stricter degrees of force/threat, and penalized differently.

Ohio and Oklahoma

Ohio state law has two distinct subsections for rape. Outside the confines of marriage, sex is non-consensual if the offender uses a “drug, intoxicant, or controlled substance” to alter the “mental or physical condition” of the victim; however, this circumstance does not apply to spouses living together. There must be “force or threat of force.” Essentially, it is legal for a husband to drug and take advantage of his wife. Oklahoma has similar legislation, requiring “force or violence” to be considered marital rape. Oklahoma also defines sexual intercourse as rape when the victim is unconscious, so long as it is not the spouse.

South Carolina and Idaho

South Carolina has even stricter laws. Sexual intercourse between spouses is non-consensual when “the threat of use of a weapon” and/or “physical violence of a high and aggravated nature” exists. In contrast, a weapon isn’t required in prosecuting “criminal sexual misconduct” outside the confines of marriage in South Carolina. Furthermore, the crime must be reported to law enforcement within 30 days of the event in order to investigate. In Idaho, “[n]o person shall be convicted of rape for any act or acts with that person’s spouse” except if the spouse struggled and was “overcome by force or violence,” threatened with violence, or drugged.

Virginia

In Virginia, court-approved marital and/or personal counseling can be substituted for fines and prison time in marital rape cases. The victim must agree and the option is available only once. This leaves the door open, however, for the offender to pressure the victim into approving the alternative. This option is not open to other cases of rape.

 Conclusion

Just last month, state legislators in Ohio embarked on a mission to remove the archaic word usage of their marital rape laws. Hopefully this is a sign of good things to come for the rest of the states that still believe spousal rape is different from any other rape. No is no. Regardless, there are still hurdles to be overcome and it’s wrong to be complacent with mediocre law writing.

Resources

Daily Beast: Marital Rape is Semi-Legal in Eight States

WomenLaw.org: Marital/Partner Rape

Daily Beast: Ex Wife: Donald Trump Made Me Feel ‘Violated’ During Sex

HealthResearchFunding.org: 21 Amazing Spousal Rape Statistics

Jezebel: A Brief Overview of Dudes Who Are Pretty Sure You Can’t Rape Your Wife

Jezebel: Wife Can’t Be Raped if She Wears a Nightie, Says Politician Named Dick

LA Times: No Prison Time For Indiana Man Convicted of Drugging, Raping Wife

The New York Times: Marital Rape

NOLO: Marital Rape Laws

Politico: Ivana Trump Denies Accusing Donald Trump of Rape

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marital Rape in the U.S.: What Are the Laws? appeared first on Law Street.

America is dealing with a hacking crisis. It seems that every other day we are bombarded with the latest hacking stories from both the private and public sectors. We are told to be cautious with all of our online activity and to remember all uploaded material remains in cyberspace forever. Almost all of us personally know someone who has dealt with identity theft and all the hassles that ensue. Some of the biggest companies in the world with the means to access the most anti-hacking software available aren’t immune to the problem. Even the national government recently made headlines concerning Chinese cyber attacks. So what can be done? In his 2015 State of the Union, President Obama addressed cybercrime. The Obama administration proposed new legislation and amendments to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Will these proposals better protect Americans from hackers?

Case Study: Ashley Madison

Just last week, a new team of hackers were at it again. People are already discreet about dating websites and apps. A level of anonymity is essential for a high volume of users. This is even truer when a dating website revolves around married men and women cheating. Ashley Madison’s slogan is “Life is short. Have an affair.” Some may chalk it up to karma, but the invasion of privacy for these members is real.

The hackers call themselves “The Impact Team.” According to Brian Krebs, the blogger who initially reported the hack, they threatened to release stolen information unless the website shut down entirely. Apparently, the team gathered users’ nude photos, sexual fantasies, names, and credit card information. It also claims to have addresses from credit card transactions.

Members of the website can post basic information and use limited features without charge. The company rakes in money when members exchange messages, photographs, and gifts. The website even offers a feature to “collect gifts” for women to send and men to pay for later. The website also has a $19 deactivation fee. This happens to be one of the major qualms of the hacker team, who claim that information is never truly deleted from the website. The hackers’ manifesto published by Krebs stated, “Full Delete netted $1.7 million in revenue in 2014. It’s also a complete lie…Users almost always pay with credit card; their purchase details are not removed as promised, and include real names and address, which is of course the most important information the users want removed.”

Ashley Madison boasts over 37 million members, making it the second largest dating website in the world, second to Match.com. Ashley Madison’s parent company, Avid Life Media, values itself at $1 billion and was looking to go public on the London market this year. Ashley Madison has done away with the deactivation fee, but has yet to comment on whether or not it will shut down.

Although the majority of people aren’t online dating in order to have an affair, the hack embodies everything scary about online interactions. Personal information and discreet activities on websites or social media applications can be made public in the blink of an eye. Just this past March, 3.5 million AdultFriendFinder users were hacked. The hackers exposed email addresses, usernames and passwords, birthdays, zip codes, and sexual preferences. Overall, the trend doesn’t look good.

Hacking Statistics

Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report

Verizon conducts an annual Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR). The latest report shows that 96 percent of online security incidents fall into nine patterns: “miscellaneous errors, such as sending an email to the wrong person; crimeware (various malware aimed at gaining control of systems); insider/privilege misuse; physical theft/loss; web app attacks; denial-of-service attacks; cyberespionage; point-of-sale intrusions; and payment card skimmers.” The 2015 report investigates more than 2,100 data breaches and roughly 80,000 reported security incidents. Over 70 organizations around the world help contribute to the report.

The 2015 DBIA reports a $400 million loss from approximately 700 million compromised records in 61 countries. The report shows that in 70 percent of the cases where the hacker’s motivation is known, there is a secondary victim. This is exemplified in the Ashley Madison case. Although the hackers are targeting the owners of the company, the users are violated as well. And in 60 percent of cases, hackers are able to infiltrate a company in a matter of minutes. The time of discovery falls significantly below that level.

The method of tricking people into divulging their information, like credit card numbers, is still around but is a much less effective method. Now, phishing campaigns are a primary source of attacks. A hacker usually phishes by sending an email with malware, usually included as an attachment. Today 23 percent of recipients open these types of email and 11 percent open the attachments. For over two years, more than two-thirds of cyber-espionage included phishing.

In more uplifting news, malware on cellphones doesn’t even account for 1 percent of the problem. Mobile devices are not the preferred medium for data breaches. Only about 0.03 percent of cell phones contained malicious materials.

U.S. Companies Hacked

According to a study conducted by the Ponemon Institute, the financial loss by cybercrime doubled from 2013 to 2014. Retailers lost approximately $8.6 billion in 2014 due to cyber crime. Furthermore, successful cyber attacks resulted in a $20.8 million loss in financial services, $14.5 million loss in the technology sector, and $12.7 million loss in the communications industries.

Last year was plagued by cyber attacks. In January, Target announced 70 million customers had contact information compromised, while 40 million customers had credit and debit card information compromised. In the same month, Neiman Marcus announced that 350,000 customers had credit card information stolen, resulting in fraudulent charges on 9,000 customers’ credits cards. In April, an AT&T worker hacked the system for two weeks and accessed personal information including social security numbers. In May, EBay asked all its customers to switch their passwords after a cyber attack accessed over 233 million EBay customers’ personal information. In August, over 60 UPS stores around the country were hacked, compromising financial data. The list continues…

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

In order to combat these cyber attacks, Congress passed the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The act made accessing a protected computer a federal crime. Although it was initially established to protect government organizations and a few financial institutions, over the course of time, it eventually broadened. It was first amended in 1994 to allow private citizens to file civil suits against cyber attacks that resulted in loss or damages. It was again broadened in 1996 to encompass any computer used in interstate commerce. After 9/11, the Patriot Act amended the CFAA to permit the search and seizure of records from any Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Later in 2008, the CFAA was again amended to allow companies to file suits when the loss and/or damages did not surpass $5,000.

The CFAA has been subject to its fair share of criticism. Many believe the act to be too broad in scope. Opponents argue that computer policies are often “vague, confusing and arbitrary,” and breaking these policies shouldn’t be a federal violation. Institutions, like the Center for Democracy & Technology, Americans for Tax Reform, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the American Civil Liberties Union all have advocate against the CFFA.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. In a 2012 case, United States vs. Nosal, the court ruled that “a person who violates an employer’s computer use policy is not criminally liable for federal penalties under the Act.” The court argued that the law was not enacted to federally punish smaller crimes. However, a strong dissent left the issue controversial, if not unresolved. The definition of “exceeds authorized access” left ample room for a Supreme Court review. The crime only becomes a felony if it is executed for profit, the gained information is worth over $5,000, and/or the act is committed to further a state or federal crime.

The White House’s New Proposals

The Cyber Security Legislative Proposals aim to enhance cybersecurity information sharing between the private sector and government, modernize law enforcement authorities to combat cyber crime with the appropriate tools and training, and streamline national data breach reporting requirements. Last December President Obama announced,

In this interconnected, digital world, there are going to be opportunities for hackers to engage in cyber assaults both in the private sector and the public sector. Now, our first order of business is making sure that we do everything to harden sites and prevent those kinds of attacks from taking place…But even as we get better, the hackers are going to get better, too. Some of them are going to be state actors; some of them are going to be non-state actors. All of them are going to be sophisticated and many of them can do some damage.

A main target of the proposal is a number of amendments to the already-controversial CFAA. First, the proposal would increase the penalty for “circumventing technical access barriers,” i.e. hacking into a computer by sidestepping security or guessing another’s password. Violators under the current law risk a misdemeanor to a three-year felony. The proposal advocates punishment to start as a three-year felony and maximize as a ten-year felony.

Second, for contract-based crimes, the proposal would officially end the aforementioned circuit split. It states that breaking written policies would be a federal crime and officially defines “exceeds authorized access.” A person would exceed authorized access if he or she accesses information “for a purpose that the accesser knows is not authorized by the computer owner.” Technically, this would include using a work computer for personal activities like Facebook; however, the government would limit criminal liability by requiring the violation fall under one of three conditions: the breach happened on a government computer, the breach results in over $5,000 worth of information, or “if the user violated the written condition in furtherance of a state or federal felony crime.” These changes, along with a variety of others, make up the administration’s proposal.

Conclusion

Whether these proposals will pass through Congress remains to be seen. Broadening the scope of hacking to allow more crimes to fall under federal jurisdiction has traditionally lacked support from the body. The proposals are controversial, with a lot of personal information and accessibility at stake. It will be interesting to see the reaction from the public if these proposals are enacted. Cyber crime is an ongoing problem that affects all citizens, regardless of demographics, and only seems to be exploding. If this isn’t the answer, then what is?

Resources

Primary

White House: Updated Administration Proposal

Additional

Verizon: The 2015 DBIR

CNN Money: Hackers threaten to release names from adultery website

The Heritage Foundation: Cyber Attacks on U.S. Companies in 2014

Jolt Digest: United States vs. Nosal

Tech Target: What is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

The Washington Post: Obama’s proposed changes to the computer hacking statute

The White House: Securing Cyberspace

Verizon: Verizon 2015 Data Breach Investigations Report Finds Cyberthreats Are Increasing in Sophistication

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Combatting Cyber Attacks: Will Congress Adopt Obama’s Plans? appeared first on Law Street.

Long-term healthcare institutions for the elderly are now more common than ever in America. There are thousands of nursing homes and residential-care facilities dispersed across the country. As a society, we rely on and trust these establishments to medically treat and handle with care our aging loved ones. Even though these places are instrumental to our healthcare system, nursing home regulations haven’t been widely updated in more than 30 years. That is until this month. The Obama Administration has set out to reform the rules required of nursing homes to qualify for Medicare and Medicaid. As they stand today, the rules aren’t up to speed with the innovative scientific advances and administration of health care. There are also alarming reports of abuse and neglect inside the system. But with promising new laws on the horizon, nursing home healthcare may be getting a makeover.

History of Nursing Homes in the United States

The normalization of nursing homes is a relatively recent development. Demographic and political shifts have created a standard use of these facilities. For many years, elderly citizens turned to almshouses, charitable housing for the sick, impoverished, inebriated, mentally ill, and homeless. The elderly lived in almshouses for a variety of reasons including poverty, disability, sickness, and/or separation from families. The Industrial Revolution started to bring more people into the cities and spread families apart. Many singles no longer had extended families to rely on for support.

At the turn of the nineteenth century, women’s and religious groups started to create specific housing for the elderly. Boston’s Home for Aged Women was created in 1850. Institutions like this generally required substantial entrance fees and certificates of good character. They were a marked upgrade and alternative to the almshouses. Many of these women were widowed or single, and had lived their lived as upstanding citizens. These requirements limited shelter to a small population; the impoverished still mostly resided in almshouses.

As time continued, almshouses started to exclusively aid the elderly. Younger people were removed and sent to specific-needs organizations like orphanages, hospitals, or insane asylums. In 1880, 33 percent of almshouse residents were elderly. By 1923, that number soared to 67 percent.

The almshouses were not places of luxury, but rather were found in extremely poor conditions. In 1992, Abraham Epstein, advocating for pensions, wrote that the almshouse “stands as a threatening symbol of the deepest humiliation and degradation before all wage-earners after the prime of life.” The enactment of the 1935 Social Security Act was in large a movement to remove almshouses altogether; however, elderly residents weren’t solely there due to poverty. Others required daily nursing and medical attention. The money received through pensions was often used to gain access to independent facilities that could provide medical care; however, conditions were not necessarily improved.

In 1955, the Medical Facilities Survey and Construction Act allowed federal support to those in public facilities. Both private and public nursing home residents received federal support. In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid was established, furthering the growth of nursing home facilities. Between 1960 and 1976, nursing homes grew by 140 percent, with 79 percent still private institutions. Through investigations conducted through the 1970s, it was concluded that the conditions were still subpar and not far enough removed from the stigma of historic almshouses.

The 1970s saw the first real regulations for nursing homes. The Office of Nursing Homes Affairs was established in 1971 and authorized to administer nursing home standards. Social Security reforms in 1972 “established a single set of requirements for facilities supported by Medicare and for skilled-nursing homes that received Medicaid.” A plethora of amendments to older acts were enacted as well.

By 2000, nursing home care became a $100 billion industry. Although the standard of care has dramatically increased since the days of the almshouse, it is time for a new round of regulations. The video below, created by the Common Wealth Fund, joins in the effort to improve nursing home quality care.

Nursing Home Care Today

Statistics

There are five, main long-term healthcare services: home health agencies, nursing homes, hospices, residential care communities, and adult day service centers. Approximately 8,357,100 people receive support from these services annually. Nursing homes alone account for 1,383, 700  people in the group, and 63 percent of those are age 65 and older. In 2000, 15 million people required long-term care. Due to Baby Boomers, that number is projected to rise to 27 million in 2050.

For those that reach the age of 65, 69 percent will acquire a disability before they die. And 35 percent will enter a nursing home at some point. One in every eight people over the age of 85 resides in an institution.

Financial Stats

A 2013 report estimates that between $210 and $306 billion is spent on long-term care per year. Most pay a majority out of pocket for assisted living, while Medicaid pays a majority for long-term nursing care and Medicaid pays for a majority of hospice care and short-term skilled nursing facilities. Almost one-fifth of the elderly community will pay more than $25,000 in out-of-pocket costs before they die. And in 2012, 14.8 percent of those over 65 were reported below the poverty line. This is even more significant as the private-pay prices for a private or semiprivate room in a nursing home grew by four percent in 2002. It grew another 4.5 percent in 2012. Lastly, Medicaid spent $83.8 billion on long-term care services in 2003, amounting to approximately one third of all Medicaid expenditures.

Proposed Regulation

There are a host of reasons why the Obama Administration has decided to tackle nursing home care regulations. First and foremost, current regulations don’t consider the advances in science and health care for the elderly. As previously stated, long-term care regulations haven’t been updated in nearly 30 years–consolidated Medicare and Medicaid requirements for long-term care facilities were set in 1989, and haven’t been updated since 1991. Science has seen invaluable progress since then. New proposals are also significant in light of reports over the last decade finding varying degrees of neglect and abuse among nursing care facilities. At the core of it all, current regulations aren’t up to par.

Highlights

The proposal bans facilities from hiring any personnel with a record of abuse and/or neglect, and develops policies that target abuse and/or neglect. Nurses would be trained in preventing elder abuse. Although there isn’t an assigned patient-to-nurse ratio, facilities will have to report staffing levels to Medicare officials for review. Low staffing is a common reason stated by those in the field why patients with dementia are given inappropriate and potentially dangerous antipsychotic drugs. The regulations would also limit the amount of antibiotic and antipsychotic drugs administered, toughen infection control, and reduce hospital readmissions.

It also suggests a baseline care program: a comprehensive plan for each resident created within 48 hours of a patient’s arrival. In addition, a nurse aide, a member of the food and nutrition services staff, and a social worker would be added to those involved in the development of the care plan. The proposal also covers “electronic health records and measures to better ensure that patients or their families are involved in care planning and in the discharge process.”

There are a number of revisions directed toward the personal happiness of the residents. The proposal includes open visitation (similar to hospital regulations) and the ability for residents to choose roommates as these facilities often double as homes. It also mandates the availability of “suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks” for residents who would like to eat outside the scheduled meal times. These types of policies create a more comfortable and home-like atmosphere.

A major concern in the long-term care community is enforcement. Toby Edelman, a senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy, states that “the biggest problem is that the rules we have now are not enforced. We have a very weak and timid enforcement system that does everything it can to cajole facilities into compliance instead of imposing penalties for noncompliance.” The proposed rules should allow violations to be more easily detected.

Conclusion

As the proposal states, “many of the revisions are aimed at aligning requirements with current clinical practice standards to improve resident safety along with the quality and effectiveness of care and services delivered to residents.” This is a way to ensure that every facility across the nation is legally required to provide equal quality of care to every patient. It is alarming that a comprehensive update to modernize the nursing home care system hasn’t been done in so many years. Residents want to feel safe and happy in their environment, and their families want to feel that their aging elders are healthy and receiving the best care possible.

Resources

Primary

Federal Register: Medicare and Medicaid Programs

Additional

CDC: Long-Term Care Services in the United States

Family Caregiver Alliance: Selected Long-Term Care Statistics

Kaiser Health News: New Regulations Would Require Modernizing Nursing Home Care

Net Industries: Nursing Homes

U.S. Legal: The History of Nursing Homes

White House: Administration Announces New Executive Actions to Improve Quality of Care for Medicare Beneficiaries

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Proposes New Nursing Home Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

The Obama Administration issued an Executive Order in March banning seven Venezuelan government officials from conducting business with American citizens or travel within the country. The order also permits the seizure of any assets in the United States held by the officials. According to the White House, the sanctions were imposed as a measure against the ongoing human rights violations and corruption within the Venezuelan government; however, the sanctions received a significant amount of negative feedback. The waters had seemed relatively calm between the two nations but spiraled quickly this year. To understand the historically strained diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Venezuela, it is important to grasp the relationship under Hugo Chávez, Socialist party member and President of Venezuela between February 2009 and March 2013. What exactly motivated these sanctions? And what’s happening four months later?

History

The United States and Venezuela officially established diplomatic relation in 1835, five years after Venezuela withdrew from its federation with Colombia. The relationship was strong based on economic ties and anti-narcotic initiatives. The U.S. has a history of relying on Venezuela as a major oil supplier. The late Hugo Chávez’s rise to power in 1999 began the current era of strained and aggressive relations. Chávez was famous for anti-American rhetoric, propelling a powerful “us” against “them” mentality within the country.

The charismatic Chávez won his first election with a 56 percent majority and a platform of ending corruption and eliminating poverty. Chávez ran full force with Plan Bolivar 2000, a social anti-poverty program that included road and housing projects and mass vaccination. The newly established constitution, approved by popular referendum, abolished the senate, authorized a unicameral National Assembly, and lengthened the presidential term from five to six years.

His wide popularity lasted until 2001. Opponents criticized his extreme Left agenda and the continued poor living conditions in the country. A short-lived coup ousted him from office for three days, until the pro-Chávez Presidential Guard reinstated him. Chávez accused the U.S. of involvement. Although the United States publically condemned the coup, U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice commented, “We do hope that Chávez recognizes that the whole world is watching and that he takes advantage of this opportunity to right his own ship, which has been moving, frankly, in the wrong direction for quite a long time.”

Although social programs continued, mounting dissatisfaction under the Chávez government ultimately led to a recall vote. Seventy percent of the population turned out to vote and the recall ended in a 59 percent victory for Chávez. Although the vote was verified as fair by the Carter Center, many called foul play. In 2005, Chávez ended Venezuela’s 35-year military ties with the United States, and tensions only increased after Venezuela’s public relationship with Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Russia. In 2006, Russia and Venezuela signed a $2.9 billion arms deal. In 2005, Chávez also strengthened his ties with China and Iran. Although Venezuela continued to provide oil to low-income families in the U.S., Chávez publically called President Bush the “devil.”

Chávez only continued to radicalize. In 2007, he announced “the nationalization of the telecom and electricity industries as well as the Central Bank, and cancel[ed] the broadcast license of private media company RCTV.” He also advocated for an act that would allow him to rule by decree for 18 months. In December 2007, he pushed for constitutional amendments that would entirely eliminate presidential terms, suspend media rights, and hold citizens without declaring charges during a state of emergency. In the same year, he withdrew from the IMF and World Bank.

In 2008, relations hit a boiling point when Chávez expelled the U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela Patrick Duddy and recalled the Venezuelan ambassador in Washington. Chávez accused the U.S. of authorizing a coup against him and announced, “When there’s a new government in the United States, we’ll send an ambassador. A government that respects Latin America.”

In 2011, rumors of the severity of Chávez’s health condition began to circulate as he had a tumor removed in Cuba. A year later, he won his fourth election defeating Henrique Capriles Radonski, who represents the Coalition for Democratic Unity. October 11, 2012, he hand picked Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro as his vice president. In March 2015, Maduro announced Chávez had died from cancer.

Maduro, a less charismatic version of Chávez, beat his opponent by a 1.5 percent margin in the next election. Capriles demanded a recount and protests filled the capital. Nine people died in the riots and Maduro, faced with a crumbling economy and exasperated by falling oil prices and increased crime and protests, turned to violent government suppression.

The Sanctions

Still on a rocky platform, the U.S. and Venezuela started 2014 with an optimistic outlook, both countries issuing statements regarding a resumed positive relationship. That quickly turned sour after student-led protests in February turned violent with military involvement. By the end, 43 people were dead and 800 injured. A major figurehead of the opposition, Leopoldo Lόpez, and two opposition mayors were arrested. The Union of South America Nations intervened to initiate diplomatic conversations between the government and opposition that ultimately failed. In 2015, another opposition figurehead, Caracas mayor Antonio Ledezma, was arrested. The Obama Administration claims that the constant violation of human rights, the failure to combat narco-trafficking, and specifically the February protests directly led to the 2015 sanctions placed on Venezuela.

U.S. Policy

On March 9, 2015, President Obama issued an executive order calling Venezuela an “extraordinary threat” and targeting seven Venezuelan officials. The sanctions are authorized under the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014 and three other congressional resolutions.

The following video shows Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) pushing for this bill.

A press release from the White House states the act is,

aimed at persons involved in or responsible for the erosion of human rights guarantees, persecution of political opponents, curtailment of press freedoms, use of violence and human rights violations and abuses in response to antigovernment protests, and arbitrary arrest and detention of antigovernment protestors, as well as the significant public corruption by senior government officials in Venezuela. The E.O. does not target the people or the economy of Venezuela.

Before the additional sanctions, the U.S. had imposed financial sanctions on eight current of former officials accused of aiding the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia in drug and weapons trafficking. Three sanctions were imposed on Venezuelan companies with ties to Iran and three individuals with ties to Hezbollah. As of today, more than 50 current or former Venezuelan government officials accused of human rights violations are under U.S. sanctions.

Domestic and Foreign Response

Although the sanctions were imposed to promote Democratic ideals and human rights, they have been met with a significant amount of negative feedback.

Congress

Sixteen members of Congress sent a letter imploring President Obama to rescind his executive order. They argued that the sanctions will be ineffective and the timing is poor with the U.S. now re-opening communication with Cuba. If the country is trying to improve diplomatic relations with Latin American, this is a poor second gesture. To open doors with Cuba and cut off Venezuela sends the wrong message to the wider community. Sanctions also harbor ill-will from the people who see it as a direct attack on the country, not just those seven individuals. The letter cites a poll that shows 75 percent of the Venezuelan population are against the sanctions. The members also argue that PROVEA, a Caracas-based human rights organization known for its criticism of Maduro, is also against the sanctions. They fear that the sanctions will strengthen the Maduro government on an anti-American platform, and instead of the Venezuelan people focusing on the corruption of its government, they will now focus on the imperialistic conduct of the U.S.

Latin American Community

The Obama Administration has received a strong negative response from Latin America. The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), consisting of 12 countries, has backed Venezuela against the sanctions. The foreign ministers have called the executive order a threat against Venezuelan sovereignty. Cuba has called the action “arbitrary and aggressive.”

The Argentine foreign ministry issued a statement saying “it’s absolutely unbelievable that any marginally informed person would think that Venezuela, or any other South American or Latin American country, could constitute a threat to the national security of the United States.” In a similar tone, former Uruguayan President José Mujica stated, “Whoever looks at the map and says that Venezuela could be a threat to the United States has to be out of his mind.”

Even if the sanctions are legitimate, some believe the particular wording too harsh. The sanctions have seemed to isolate the U.S. from the Latin American community, just as measures were being taken to open doors.

Maduro Government

Maduro responded to the executive action calling it “the most aggressive, unjust and harmful step that has ever been taken by the U.S. against Venezuela.” He quickly named one of the sanctions officials his new interior minister and called all those sanctioned individuals heroes. Maduro also accused Obama of “personally taking on the task of defeating my government, intervening in Venezuela, in order to control it from the U.S.”

In Maduro’s most direct move on the topic, he published a letter in the New York Times calings the order “tyrannical and imperial” and stating that “it pushes us back into the darkest days of the relationship between the United States and Latin America and the Caribbean.” More than 5 million Venezuelans petitioned their names to the letter.

To counteract the alleged U.S. threat, the Venezuelan National Assembly approved Maduro’s request to obtain the power to legislate by decree for the duration of the year–a move that those in opposition of the sanctions feared. He also called for an immediate reduction of the U.S. embassy in Venezuela and imposed new visa requirements for Americans.

Recent Developments

U.S.-Venezuela talks took place in Haiti on June 4 between Thomas Shannon, a counselor to the U.S. Secretary of State, and Diosdado Cabello, the chairman of Venezuela’s national assembly and Venezuelan Foreign Minister Rodriguez. Venezuelan officials tweeted that both sides were working to resolve the crisis. Interestingly enough, U.S. media sites have reported that Cabello is currently being investigated by the U.S. for drug trafficking and money laundering.

On July 1, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) arrived in Venezuela to meet with opposition leaders, though the discussions have been kept largely under wraps.

Conclusion

Although meetings are taking place between the two countries after the March blow up, no significant headway seems to have been made quite yet. Venezuelan and American citizens can only hope for the best and rely on our respective diplomatic representatives. Are the sanctions effective? Maybe not. The U.S. aims to fight human rights violations and those who aid or turn a blind eye to drug trafficking. But the tactic used leaves a lot to be desired. The U.S. is effectively isolating itself from the Venezuelan people and giving fire to Maduro’s anti-American campaign.

Resources

Congressional Research Service: Venezuela: Background and U.S. Relations

Al Jazeera: U.S. Venezuela Relations Sour in New Spat

BBC: U.S. Venezuela Talks Take Place in Haiti Despite Tensions

BBC: Venezuelan Leader Maduro Condemns New U.S. Sanctions

Council on Foreign Relations: Venezuela’s Chaves Era

Global Research: Letter to the People of the United States

Huffington Post: Democrats Ask Obama to Stop Sanctioning Venezuela

Huffington Post: South American Governments Slam Obama Over Venezuela Sanctions

U.S. Department of State: U.S. Relations With Venezuela

U.S. News & World Report: Venezuela Sanctions Backfire on Obama

Venezuelan Analysis: Over 5 Million Venezuelans Sign Letter Urging Repeal of Obama’s Executive Order

Venezuelan Analysis: U.S. Republican Senator Meets With Venezuelan Opposition in Caracas

White House: Venezuela Executive Order

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S.-Venezuelan Relations: Can the Doors Be Reopened? appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court is making back-to-back headlines lately with a substantial number of major cases being decided . Judicial opinions and dissents are of the utmost importance, more than ever to this generation. America is undergoing a major shift in opinion regarding civil liberties. Although we are in the middle of what seems to be a crisis of racial tensions, the majority of Americans now stand behind equal freedoms regardless of race, sexual preference, religion, or gender. We see this more every day. Confederate flags are being lowered across the South. Although tolerant beliefs are expanding, it means little without mirrored changes in law. The Supreme Court’s decisions are the absolute law of the land. The nine justices decide which laws are constitutional and which are not. So it is no surprise that the appointment and confirmation of justices by the executive and legislative branches are undertaken with the gravest sincerity. Democrats and Republicans alike want justice on their side for the big issues. The justices preside over monumental decisions that write history. So what goes into a judicial appointment? What mistakes have liberals and conservatives made in choosing justices? And are any judicial transitions coming up in the near future?

How do judicial appointments work?

Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president, rather than elected. The nomination must be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate, and appointments are set for life. A president can only make a nomination when one of the acting nine justices steps down or dies. The president may turn to the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, members of Congress, sitting judges and justices, and the American Bar Association advice and support. Interest groups can offer influence as well. For example, after Justice Byron White retired in 1993, President Clinton received open declarations from multiple women’s group advocating for a female nomination.

Legal competence and exceptional ethical behavior are primary qualifications for nominees. Candidates who clearly demonstrate these qualities have a much stronger shot at being confirmed by the Senate. Candidates are scrutinized very closely. For example, the Reagan administration embarrassed itself when Douglas Ginsburg, a judicial nominee, was discovered to have a drug problem. The administration took extra care to make sure the next appointment,  Justice Anthony Kennedy, was completely clean. Since legal competency and ethical behavior are vital factors, most judges do not campaign for the appointment, but rather let their work speak for itself, though there are exceptions. Former President William Taft ran a successful campaign that led to his appointment. Other criterion include political ideology, party affiliation, personal loyalties, ethnicity, and gender. A president wants a nominee’s ideologies and outlooks to line up with his own, and he often sees nominations as a major part of his legacy after service.

Once a presidential nomination is official, the referral is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It gathers evidence and conducts hearings with various testimonies from the candidate and other witnesses. Then it votes for the recommendation to the Senate. The vote is then sent to the Senate floor. Since the late 1940s, the Senate has been less likely to easily accept nominations. Between 1949-mid 2000s, four nominations were defeated, seven received more than ten negative votes, and others encountered heavy resistance. A nominee with moderate politics will find the process easier and faster.

Who sits on the bench today?

The Supreme Court has nine members, one of whom is the chief justice. Today there are six men and three women, all described more below.

• John G. Roberts, Jr.: Chief Justice Roberts is a white, Republican, Roman Catholic male born in Buffalo, New York and raised in Indiana. A 1979 graduate of Harvard Law, he was appointed to the bench in 2005 after being nominated by President George W. Bush.
• Antonin Scalia: Associate Justice Scalia is a white, Republican, Roman Catholic male born in Trenton, New Jersey and raised in Queens, New York. A 1960 graduate of Harvard Law, he was appointed to the bench in 1986 after being nominated by President Ronald Reagan.
• Anthony McLeod Kennedy: Associate Justice Kennedy is a white, Roman Catholic, Republican male originally from Sacramento, California. A 1961 graduate of Harvard Law, he was appointed to the bench in 1988 after being nominated by President Ronald Reagan.
• Clarence Thomas: Associate Justice Thomas is a black, Roman Catholic, Republican male from Georgia. A 1974 graduate of Yale Law, he was appointed to the bench in 1991 by President George H. W. Bush.
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Associate Justice Ginsburg is a white, Jewish, female Democrat from Brooklyn, New York. A 1959 graduate of Columbia Law, she was appointed to the bench in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.
• Stephen G. Breyer: Associate Justice Breyer is a white, Jewish, male Democrat from San Francisco, California. A 1964 graduate of Harvard Law, he was appointed to the bench in 1994 by President Bill Clinton.
• Samuel A. Alito, Jr.: Associate Justice Alito is a white, Roman Catholic, male Republican from New Jersey. A 1975 graduate of Yale Law, he was appointed to the bench in 2006 after being nominated by President George W. Bush.
• Sonia Maria Sotomayor: Associate Justice Sotomayor is a Latina, Roman Catholic, female Democrat from New York. A 1979 graduate of Yale Law, she was appointed to the bench in 2009 after being nominated by President Barack Obama.
• Elena Kagan: Associate Justice Kagan is a white, Jewish, female Democrat originally from New York. A 1986 graduate of Harvard Law, she was appointed to the bench in 2010 after being nominated by President Barack Obama.

The Swing Vote

The selection of each justice is vital as it could drastically affect the outcome of major cases. Our political climate could be vastly different today if certain nominations came from different presidents and at different times. Today a significant number of major cases come down to a 5-4 vote with the decision based on ideological lines. That is one justice setting the legal tone for the country. It showcases the importance of the individual. Here are some recent examples.

Lethal Injection

On June 29, 2015 the Court decided on 5-4 vote that an execution drug that renders prisoners unconscious in the first stages of the lethal injection process is constitutional and doesn’t violate the Eighth Amendment–cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Kennedy was the swing vote.

Pollution Limits

On June 29, 2015 the Court found in a 5-4 vote that the Environmental Protection Agency didn’t take a cost-benefit analysis into consideration before setting limits on mercury and other pollutant emissions on power plants. Therefore, the agency violated the Clean Air Act. Once again, the swing vote was Justice Kennedy.

Same-Sex Marriage

On June 26, 2015 the Court voted 5-4 that same-sex marriage is a guaranteed nationwide right. Once again the swing vote was Justice Kennedy, even writing the majority opinion.

The Down Side

Liberal/Conservative Regrets Choosing Justices

In such a serious and consequential process, there can certainly be mistakes and regrets. First, Presidents are known to have regretted appointments. There isn’t a guarantee how Justices will vote in the future and how ideologies can change. Once confirmed, the pressures on the justices are less from the outside of the courtroom, but more from within. Also, justices aim at stepping down at the appropriate time in order to secure an approved replacement. Basically, a conservative justice wants to retire under a Republic president and vice versa.

Misjudging Political Ideologies

Republican President  Theodore Roosevelt appointed Oliver Wendell Holmes to the bench in 1902. Justice Holmes ultimately voted against the president in major cases challenging the legality of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In response, President Roosevelt famously said, “Out of a banana I could carve a firmer backbone.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower claimed his appointments of Earl Warren and William Brennan were the two biggest mistakes of his presidency. Both appointments added to the 1960s’ strong liberal court. Warren, as Chief Justice, oversaw a court that fought against racial segregation, banned school prayer, and advocated for individual rights against the federal government. Brennan supported affirmative actions and voted to overturn flag-burning laws.

Republican President Richard Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun in 1970. Blackmun turned around to support a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, our current swing vote, was appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan. He has been at the forefront in advocating for gay rights, the elimination of the death penalty for juveniles, and banning prayer at school graduation.

Republican President George H. W. Bush appointed David Souter in 1990. Souter voted liberally in areas of abortion rights, securing affirmative action, and limiting the death penalty.

Bad Timing

Democrats have a stronger record of bad timing. Compared to their Republican counterparts, Democrats have been less strategic in nominations and in the timing of judicial retirements. For example, President Johnson nominated Abe Fortas for the Supreme Court, highly due to his personal relationship with him as his former personal lawyer and friend. The Senate jumped all over this relationship and ultimately defeated the nomination. By the end of the dragged-out process, President Johnson no longer had time to make another nomination. The task ultimately was left to his successor, President Richard Nixon, who nominated strong conservative Warren Burger.

Other justices fail at timing their retirements. Liberal Justice Thurgood Marshall refused to retire toward the end of his career while Democrat President Jimmy Carter was in office. Consequentially, Republicans won the next three presidential elections and Marshall was forced to leave his seat to Republican Clarence Thomas. This also occurred with Hugo Black replacing Lewis Powell.

Possible Upcoming Transitions

As of today, no Supreme Court Justice has announced plans for retirement. However, some seem to be nearing the end of their careers, solely based on age. Justice Ginsburg is the oldest at 81. Not far behind are Justices Breyer and Kennedy, both 78, and Justice Scalia at 75. Will Justice Ginsburg retire under President Obama in a strategic move? According to Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the law school at the University of California, the “best way for her to advance all the things she has spent her life working for is to ensure that a Democratic president picks her successor.” Many factors play into this decision, such as the 2016 presidential election. Also that the Republicans currently have a Senate majority. The next nominations are more important than ever as so many cases are decided by a swing vote.

Conclusion

Some people don’t agree with partisan politics being weighed so heavily in the judicial branch of our government. And maybe they shouldn’t. But that doesn’t change the consideration and strategic thinking that go into Supreme Court nominations. As serious as the matter is, and with all the input and advice sought, mistakes are still made. Successful nominations as well as regrets have helped shape this nation for better or worse. Only time will tell what is to come for our next group of Supreme Court Justices. It will be interesting to see what moves are made by the upcoming retiring justices, Senate, and future president .

 Resources

CQ Press: The Selection and Confirmation of Justices

American Government: How Judges and Justices Are Chosen

Inside Gov: Compare Supreme Court Justices

The New York Times: Major Supreme Court Cases of 2015

The New York Times: The Supreme Court Blunder That Liberals Tend to Make

Supreme Court: Biographies of Current Justices of the Supreme Court

Time: Four Enduring Myths About Supreme Court Nominees

USA Today: Justices Sometimes Regret Justices They Appoint

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Nominations: Do Presidents Make Mistakes? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States Postal Service has been in financial trouble for the better part of a decade. As a society, we rely on the postal service in our everyday lives. Although email and social media are today’s go-to communication methods, we still expect some things to show up at the door whether it be bills, college acceptance letters, or items ordered from Amazon. Many give an extra tip to the mailman or mailwoman during the holiday season in thanks to that integral service all year round. Perhaps we should no longer take that service for granted. The Postal Service is in hot water with an ongoing deficit. So what actions are being taken today to rectify the budget crisis and how could it affect the average American?

 The U.S. Postal Service

Here is a brief background on how the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) came to be the organization it is today. The government created the United States Post Office Department, headed by the Postmaster General, in 1872. It was elevated from its post as a cabinet department from 1872 to 1971. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, signed by President Richard Nixon, replaced the U.S. Post Office Department with the current USPS. The Act came as a response to the 1970 Postal Strike. On March 23, 1970, President Nixon called in the National Guard and armed forces to counteract the large wildcat strike. The strike called for higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions. For example, Congress had allocated a 41 percent raise for members of Congress, while Postal Department workers only received a 4 percent increase.

The 1970 Postal Reorganization Act redesigned the branch. The newly created USPS, as we know it today, became an independent body of the executive branch with a legal monopoly over mail service. The USPS was restructured to achieve financial independence through postage sales, mail products, and services. Taxpayer money is only used in providing mail services to the disabled and Americans overseas. Although the USPS is legally responsible for its own budget, it may borrow up to $3 billion a year from the U.S. Treasury and retain a debt ceiling of up to $15 billion. As an independent but federal organization, the USPS receives many perks including exemption from vehicle licensing requirements, sales tax, local property taxes, and even parking tickets. To ensure universal service and a six-day delivery service nationwide, the USPS is granted a monopoly over first class and standard mail delivery. Competition, such as UPS and FedEx, are not allowed access to mailboxes.

 What is Causing the Deficit?

USPS has accumulated $47 billion in operating losses since the 1971 reorganization. This is even more shocking when you learn that the USPS has generated more than $700 billion in revenue. From 2007-2010 alone, the “USPS lost $20 billion, and its debt increased from $2.1 billion to $12 billion.” It has only increased since then. The USPS lost $5 billion in the 2013 fiscal year and $5.5 billion in the 2014 fiscal year. The USPS reached its legal $15 billion deficit ceiling back in 2012.

The primary factor for this likely depends on who you ask because there are a few different pieces to this puzzle. One major reason: the USPS is legally bound by Congress to “prefund more than $5.5 billion annually for health benefits for future retirees,” since 2006. As of 2013, the USPS set aside about $44 billion for this specific allocation. Frankly, it’s something the USPS can’t afford. When the mandate was implemented in 2006, the USPS was financially strong. It was before the 2008 recession and explosion of other communication outlets. In 2012, it defaulted on this payment for this first time.

That brings us to our second reason for the default: lower volume. In 2006, the USPS delivered 97 billion pieces of first-class mail. In 2012, it delivered 68 billion pieces. The decline isn’t surprising with today’s innovative technologies that are only expanding. Everything seems to be going online from bills to keeping in touch. Other factors include competition from FedEx/UPS, ballooned operating costs, and the demands of the unionized workforce.

President’s Obama’s Proposed Solution

President Obama has a plan for the 2016 fiscal budget and the USPS that would potentially save $36 billion over the course of 11 years. The plan is similar to a bill introduced by Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) and former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), previously killed in Congress. For starters, Saturday delivery would be cut. This would be implemented when volumes drop to the predicted amount in late 2018. It would also replace door-to-door service with a centralized or curbside delivery service. This would perhaps ultimately be safer for mailmen and mailwomen. The plan offers the idea of “increasing revenue by providing postal management with more flexibility in creating new business opportunities, as well as boosting cooperation with state and local governments to offer services at post offices.”

The White House also addresses the mandated prefund healthcare benefits of retirees, deferring the 2015 and 2016 payments. The payments would ultimately be paid out under a 40-year amortization schedule beginning in 2017. This would bring in “$13 billion in relief to USPS through 2016.” The plan would reimburse USPS an estimated $1.5 billion in over-costs to the Office of Personal Management for federal retirement payments. It also calls for more future investments and faster technology.

Increased Rates

Lastly, the plan calls to make the emergency price increase of postage permanent. This, however, has been struck down multiple times. The price of mail increased by three cents in January 2014, the largest rate bump initiated in 11 years. The rate of inflation should have called for a 1.7 percent increase, but it set a 4.3 percent increase. The current stamp price is 49 cents. The price increase was granted to allow the USPS extra revenue and was set as a two-year term. When the USPS initially asked for the increase to be permanent, they were rejected by the Postal Regulatory Commission. They explained that the increase was meant to counteract losses from the recession, not to alleviate losses caused by the expanding electronic industry.

In a recent development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit ruled on June 6, 2015 that the priced increase could not be permanent. Circuit Judge Patricia Ann Millet wrote the following:

The Commission sensibly concluded that the statutory exception allowing higher rates when needed to respond to extraordinary financial circumstances should only continue as long as those circumstances, in fact, remained extraordinary,” Circuit Judge Patricia Ann Millet wrote on behalf of the appeals court. “The Commission permissibly reasoned that just because some of the effects of exigent circumstances may continue for the foreseeable future, that does not mean that those circumstances remain ‘extraordinary’ or ‘exceptional’ for just as long.

This ruling does not favor this one aspect of the White House’s overall plan.

Other Possible Solutions

There are a plethora of ideas circulating for the USPS to generate extra money. One idea is the reincorporation of the Postal Savings System. It’s a basic savings account for those who don’t wish to use a private bank. Lower-income families that don’t currently use a bank and pay bloated prices for transactions like cashing checks could potentially benefit from this system. There are more than enough post offices around the country to make this convenient for customers. Another idea is for the USPS to catch up to its communication competitors and offer email/internet services. The USPS could offer an affordable rate compared to its potential competitors. Other ideas include “a notary service, selling fishing and hunting licenses, and ending restrictions on shipping wine and beer.”

The USPS could also remodel its system to more resemble postal services in Europe. Countries like Sweden, Germany, and Finland only allocate a certain percent of the market to their national postal services. For example, the Swedish service Posten only accounts for 12 percent of Sweden’s post offices. This allows it to streamline and focus on certain aspects of the market like digital mail products. Whether this is a viable option is up in the air, but could be an idea worth considering.

Conclusion

The financial issues of the U.S. Postal Service have massive effects on our country from the thousands of employed postal service workers to everyday citizens receiving and sending mail. An increase in stamp prices severely affects businesses that allocate a certain amount of their budgets to sending out materials. All in all, it is a national issue. With certain actions already in place, the USPS saw a $569 million revenue increase in the 2014 fiscal year. This by no means offsets the deficit, but it proves innovative ideas can make a difference. With any luck, revisions made to the 2016 fiscal budget will provide promising results.

Resources

CATO: Privatizing the U.S. Postal Service

Government Executive: As New Postal Leader Takes Charge, Obama Calls for Major USPS Reforms

Huffington Post: The Plight of the Postal Service

PBS: The Postal Service

Smithsonian: 197o Postal Strike

Time: How Healthcare Expenses Cost Us Saturday Postal Delivery

USPS: Despite Revenue Growth and Record Productivity, Postal Service Loses $5 Billion in 2013 Fiscal Year

USPS: U.S. Postal Service Reports Revenue Increase, $5.5 Billion Loss in Fiscal 2014

Washington Post: Postal Service Gets Approval for a Temporary Increase in Stamp Prices

Washington Post: USPS Cen’t Keep Rate Increase Forever, Court Rules

Editor’s note: A previous version of this article stated that the Post Office was created by the founding farmers in 1972; it was created in 1872.

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The USPS Deficit Crisis: What’s the Plan? appeared first on Law Street.

The gaming industry is massive, raking in $100 billion worldwide. The industry has come a long way since Tetris and Pac-man. Video games are on cellphones–think Candy Crush. Gamers can use a headset to talk to one another half way across the globe while playing out a visually realistic battle scene. The technology is impressive and has lured people in from all different backgrounds and ages. One would think that the diversity of the games would be mirrored in the industry itself; however, critics of the industry frequently lob accusations of misogyny and the perpetuation of rape culture, which is ironic since 48 percent of gamers are women. Is this merely the market responding to the demand of its consumers or is this the industry actively demeaning a large section of its customer base?

Gender Roles Inside the Games

Female Gamers

A female presence has always been in the gaming industry, but it has skyrocketed in the last few years. In 2011, 1.2 million girls and women played on their consoles more than five days a week. Today that number is more than 5 million.

It is time to change the face of the stereotypical gamer. In reality, males between the ages of 10-25 only account for 15 percent of the market. Puzzle-oriented games on cell phones, like Words With Friends, have created a more diverse marketplace. For example, according to the Entertainment Software Association, from 2012-2013, female gamers over the age of 50 increased by 32 percent. With cell phones and social media, games are much more user-friendly. Game developers took notice and started creating games specifically aimed at women. “Kim Kardashian: Hollywood” amassed $51 million since its launch, making it one of the highest grossing apps on iPhones and Androids.

But these types of games cannot take all the credit. Yes, they have helped bring a new audience, but the average female gamer has been playing for more than 13 years, which predates the explosion of such casual mobile games. Many females play more stereotypical games like “Call of Duty” and want to be treated fairly. According to a study conducted by Danielle Keats Citron, author of “Hate Crimes in Cyberspace,” 70 percent of female gamers play as a male character in order to avoid sexual harassment and ridicule. Apparently, playing as a male character ensures equal treatment.

Female Characters

Female characters inside more stereotypical video games like “Assassins Creed” or “World of Warcraft” are sexually objectified and hyper-sexualized. Female protagonists look more like porn stars than badass warriors. Of course, this is only true when female protagonists are even allowed in the games. And female extras are even worse off, some experiencing extreme sexual violence.

The latest installment of “Assassin’s Creed,” for example, offered no female protagonists. Ubisoft technical director James Therien claimed adding a female character would have “doubled the work” for the animation team. Game designer Jonathon Cooper, a lead developer for earlier installments of the game, denied this, estimating it would have only taken days. So what’s the real reason?

When female protagonists are offered, they are hyper-sexualized. Most “women in drawn art, comics, and animation must and show, look and move with flowy, exaggerated gestures, graceful movements, and hip, chest, and ass thrust forward.” These women perpetuate completely unrealistic ideals of women. Skimpy clothing, skirts, bows, and makeup don’t create an advantage in combat.

Then of course there is the damsel-in-distress stereotype. The female character is at a loss until her knight in shining armor type comes to rescue her. For example, there is Princess Peach who “wears a gown, dainty gloves, and a clueless expression, which imply nothing as far as skill and ability, unless you consider her special attack: a dimpled, smiling heart that protects her cart.” Her character is indeed less capable than her male counterparts.

“Grand Theft Auto V” promotes extreme sexual violence. Even more exaggerated by a first-person view option, a gamer can watch as a prostitute services the character. All you need to do is drive or walk up close to a prostitute. It can even boost character health to more than 100 percent. And in the end, you can kill the prostitute and take your money back. Strauss Zelnick, the CEO of GTA’s publisher Take-Two, called this type of scene “beautiful art.”

LGBTQ Characters

Females are not the only demographic portrayed negatively in the video game world. The LGBTQ community is just as much underserved. Although there are exceptions, most LBGTQ video game characters come out as the villain. The “Metal Gear Solid” series depicts the variety of gay and bisexual characters as enemies of the main character. “Fable II“ and “Fable III” represent the bisexual character, Reaver, as fickle and decadent. The protagonist in “Ballad of Gay Tony“ is a murdering “drug-addicted crime lord.” More often than not, LGBTQ characters are absent. But when they are provided, the associations with the characters are almost entirely negative.

 Professional Women in the Industry

As proved, the number of women playing video games is only on the rise. This is cannot be said, however,  for the number of women taking on professional roles in the gaming industry. Only 11 percent of women are game designers and only three percent are programmers. This is even more shocking when compared to the percentages of women in graphic design (60 percent) and tech sectors (25 percent). And according to a 2011 survey by Gamer Developer Magazine, female programmers make $10,000 less a year and female designers make $12,000 less than their male counterparts.

In November 2012, a massive Twitter conversation, among thousands of men and women gamers and developers was sparked by the tweet “Why aren’t there more female game developers?” Answers ranged from safety (females being groped at conventions) to blank stare responses to questions about over-sexualized female characters. The conversation received national coverage and long awaited recognition.

There are notable and exciting exceptions. Kirsten Duvall has been working in the industry for the last 20 years and is currently the Business Development Director of Everyplay Unity Technologies. Tracy Fullerton is the Director and experimental game designer at the University of South Carolina’s Innovation Lab. USC is one of the world’s leading video game schools. And Chelsea Howe is an extremely effective Creative Director at EA Mobile. These women prove that female success in the industry can be done regardless of the rocky road.

Case Study: #GamerGate

Here is a look at a prime example of the hostility women can face in the industry. Gamergate started around two women: Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Quinn, a game designer, released a free game/interactive story called Depression Quest. Quinn’s ex-boyfriend publicly claimed in a number of lengthy blogs that Quinn had cheated on him with people in the field to further her career. It boiled down to Quinn being accused of trading coverage for sex and ethics in journalism. The attacks spiraled out of control leading to death threats. Days later, Sarkeesian, a feminist writer and media critic, got thrown into the mix. Sarkeesian previously advocated for less sexualized female characters and greater female inclusion. Sarkeesian’s video series “Tropes vs. Women in Video Games” received a lot of attention. Her unpopular opinion was answered with unspeakable malice.

This was not your run-of-the-mill negative attention. Both women received graphic and disturbing threats and felt it necessary to leave their homes. These threats all came under the viral hashtag #Gamergate. Shortly after, Jenn Frank and Mattie Brice, notable women in the industry who defended Quinn and Sarkeesian, announced their resignations from the industry due to similar threats.

 The Legal End

Unfortunately as far as regulations go, there are few to none. The courts have time and time again defended game developers under free speech and the First Amendment.

In the 2005 case Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Blagojevich, the federal court found Illinois’ video game statute unconstitutional. It ruled against the previously implemented law banning the distribution to minors of video games with certain violent content. The court did, however, mandate labels restricting such video games to adults and ensure retailors displayed signs explaining video game rating systems. The 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. A year later the same verdict was rendered in Michigan and Louisiana in Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Granholm and Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Foti. Many states endured this battle until the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in California in 2011. In a 7-2 opinion, the court stated “speech about violence is not obscene” and that they are “as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature.”

As of now, the only legislation in effect is the “Video Games Rating Enforcement Act” that mandates specific labels on video games displaying the ratings based on violent content. One bill introduced, but untimely denied, was the “Children Protection from Video Game Violence and Sexual Content Act.” The act advocated for stricter regulations regarding viewership and video game content. The bill died in the House.

Conclusion

Females are serious heavyweights in the gaming community more than ever before. They love to play as much as males. This includes games of all intensities from Zelda to Trivia Crack. The industry is just starting to take this demographic seriously. But the hostility and open sexism toward women is real and can’t go unchecked, even if it isn’t coming from the majority of gamers. Industry leaders need to make the inclusion of women a priority, and they can start by hiring more of the many intelligent, competent women in the industry.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: Video Game Legislation

Additional

Boston Globe: Women Remain Outsiders in Video Game Industry

Washington Post: More Women Play Video Games Than Boys, and Other Surprising Facts Lost in the Mess of Gamergate

Daily Dot: How Sexist Video Game Animators Keep Failing Women

Entertainment Consumers Association: Video Games and Government Regulations

Fortune: 10 Powerful Women in Video Games

Hastac: Damsels in Distress: Female Representation in Video Games

HuffPost Tech: Sadistic and Decadent: Queering Video Games

Mirror: Grand Theft Auto V: Shocking Video of Prostitute Sex With Gamer in Controversial First-Person Viewpoint

Washington Post: The Only Guide to Gamergate You Will Ever Need to Read

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Gaming Industry: Misogynistic and Living in the Past appeared first on Law Street.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) leads the United States environmental community’s fight against power plant emissions. Its main priority? To reduce carbon pollution, which, among other greenhouse gas pollutants, is detrimental to the Earth’s climate and the health of every global citizen. In recent years, the EPA has taken strides like never before to combat unchecked power plants across the country that produce harmful gases into the atmosphere. With the backing of the Obama Administration, environmental efforts are at the forefront of America’s priorities.

 The EPA and Carbon Pollution

What is the EPA?

The Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing U.S. regulations based on environmental laws passed by Congress. Nearly half of the EPA budget is directed to grants for state environmental programs, non-profits, educational institutions, and other entities that align with its mission. The EPA also conducts and shares its own scientific studies, sponsors partnerships within the environmental community, and educates the public.

What are carbon pollutants?

According to environmental scientists, carbon pollution is the primary contributor to long-lasting climate disruption. Carbon pollutants and other greenhouse gas pollutants (gases that trap heat in the atmosphere) exacerbate natural weather conditions like floods, wildfires, and droughts and negatively impact human health. Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) makes up nearly three quarters of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and accounts for 84 percent in the United States. Other greenhouse gases include Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and synthetic fluorinated gases. The severity of damage these pollutants cause to climate depends on the abundance and strength of the gas and duration its duration in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is by far the most abundant and therefore the most dangerous.

CO₂ passes into the atmosphere through “burning fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and oil), solid waste, trees, and wood products, and also as a result of certain chemical reactions (e.g. manufacture of cement.)” In the natural carbon cycle, CO₂ is removed from the atmosphere through plant absorption. Carbon pollutants alter the natural balance; carbon dioxide is entering the atmosphere at a higher rate than it is leaving.

CO₂ emissions have been on the rise since the Industrial Revolution, but between 1990 and 2013, CO₂ emission increased by seven percent due to energy use and transportation emissions. NASA’s video below shows a visual simulation of CO₂ emissions.

Main Source of Carbon Pollution

Human reliance on electricity is to blame for an estimated 37 percent of CO₂ emissions. Transportation and industry account for most of the rest. The combustion of fossil fuel to create energy is the primary source of carbon emissions. The burning of coal, in particular, emits the most CO₂ compared to oil and gas. Therefore, coal-burning power plants are the leading cause of carbon emissions in the United States.

Coal-fired power plants first burn coal to create extremely fine talcum powder, which is blown into the firebox of the boiler with hot air. The burning coal and air combination creates “the most complete combustion and maximum heat possible.” Water, pumped through the pipes inside the boiler, turns into steam, which can reach 1,000 degrees F and has a pressure of up to 3,500 pounds per square inch. At this point, the steam is piped to the turbine generator where the pressure turns the turbine blades, therefore turning the turbine shaft connected to the generator. Inside the generator, “magnets spin within coils to produce electricity.” Lastly, steam turns back into water inside a condenser.

In a given year, an average 500 megawatt coal-fired electricity plant emits 3.7 million tons of CO₂, 220 tons of hydrocarbons (which creates smog), and 720 tons of poisonous carbon monoxide. This results from burning 1,430,000 tons of coal a year. Aside from carbon emissions, the plant will also release 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide, 125,000 tons of ash, and 225 pounds of arsenic.

Negative Impacts of Carbon Pollutants

According to the EPA, carbon pollution causes rising global temperatures, rising sea level, changes in weather and precipitation patterns, and changes in ecosystems, habitats, and species diversity. High levels of CO₂ can cause an increase or decrease in rainfall depending on location. Rainfall influences agriculture crop yields, water supplies, energy resources, and forest and other ecosystems across the globe.

Carbon pollution causes an increase in heat waves, drought, and smog (ground-level ozone pollution). It can lead to increasing intensity of extreme events, i.e. hurricanes, precipitation, and flooding. It can also increase the “range of ticks and mosquitoes, which can spread disease such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus.” Younger children, those with heart or lung diseases, and people living in poverty could be at risk the most for feeling the effects of climate change.

Laws and Proposed Regulations

The Clean Air Act

One of the first pieces of hard-hitting environmental legislation was the Clean Air Act of 1970, which was most recently revised in 1990. The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to establish and enforce National Ambient Quality Standards. The 1990 amendments, led by the Bush Administration, specifically aimed to fight acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions. It defines major sources of air pollutants “as a stationary source or group of stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of a hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants,” and requires technology-based standards. These standards are referred to as “maximum achievable control technology.

President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

On June 25, 2013, President Obama announced a plan through executive orders to reduce carbon emissions. The President created a list of carbon-reduction targets on the path of decreasing U.S. carbon emissions, preparing and adapting for climate change, and leading the global effort to address the issue. On the domestic front, Obama ordered the EPA to finalize its standards for greenhouse emissions from new and old coal-burning power plants. Although, industry heads have threatened suits if old plants are required to limit emissions.

The executive orders also called for strict standards in fuel efficiency for heavy-duty vehicles after 2018 to minimize greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. In order to prepare for climate change, Obama’s plan involves federal, state, and local governments working together in order to “increase investments in protective infrastructure.” Weather disasters accumulated $100 billion worth of damages in 2012. Internationally, Obama’s plan includes promoting “the development of a global market for natural gas and continued use of nuclear power.” The plan also calls for the Obama Administration to work with U.S. trading partners to discuss negotiations at the World Trade Organization to advocate free trade in environmental goods/services and cleaner energy technologies.

Clean Power Plan

The EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan, released in June 2014, sets state-by-state carbon emissions rate-reduction targets. The plan calls for a 30 percent reduction of 2005 carbon emission levels by 2030. The plan provides alternative plans called “building blocks” to cut carbon emissions. Some of these building blocks include: renewable energy sources, nuclear power, efficiency improvements at individual fossil fuel plants, shifting generation from coal to natural gas, and greater energy efficiency in buildings and industries. Targets per state range due to individual states’ “mix of electricity-generation resources…technological feasibilities, costs, and emissions reduction potentials of each building block.”

After comments and revisions, the plan is expected to be finalized in August 2015. The EPA anticipates a long run of legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan from coal-producing industry heads. The Obama Administration and EPA saw its first legal win last week on June 9. The suit was brought by some of the nation’s largest coal companies and 14 coal-producing states claiming the plan would jeopardize future construction of coal plants and slow U.S. coal demand. One of the lawyers leading the suit is Lawrence H. Tribe, a Harvard University constitutional law scholar and former law school mentor to President Obama. The courts, for now, have dismissed the case as premature. As Judge Brett Kavanaugh explained in the opinion, “They want us to do something that they candidly acknowledge we have never done before: review the legality of a proposed rule.” Although delayed, opposition will fight another day.

Conclusion

The future holds the final decisions from the courts regarding the Clean Power Plan. Some challenges will more than likely make their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. It will be a tough battle for the environmental community, but it is one for the health of our Earth and everyone on it. The negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, especially Carbon Dioxide, aren’t theories. They are facts and we have to face reality. Although no plan can reverse the damage that has already been done, we can prevent future damage from taking place. It is truly an international issue that needs international cooperation, but it starts domestically, and hopefully the United States will be the leader it needs to be in environmental conservation.

Resources

Primary

EPA: Carbon Dioxide Emissions

EPA: 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary 

EPA: Summary of the Clean Air Act

Additional

CFC: Obama Vows to Finalize Carbon Standards, Other Safeguards in Climate Change Plan

DESMOG: Facts on the Pollution Caused by the U.S. Coal Industry

Duke Energy: How do Power Plants Work?

EPA: Learn About Carbon Pollution From Power Plants

EPA: Our Mission and What We Do

EPA: Overview of Greenhouse Gases

The New York Times: Court Gives Obama a Climate Change Win

Union of Concerned Scientists: The Clean Power Plan

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Power Plants and Carbon Pollution: What Can the EPA Do? appeared first on Law Street.

Multiple public and private agencies make up the child welfare systems across the country. Although the primary responsibility falls on the shoulders of state governments, the federal government supports the states through funding, program development, and legislative initiatives. Both state and federal governments are essential to the process. The child welfare system’s mission is to create safe and permanent environments for children and to strengthen family units. It is an immense and complex project. So immense and complex, however, that important aspects of child safety fall through the cracks. Oversights are often devastating. Read on to learn more about the challenges that abate the U.S. Child Welfare Systems’ mission.

Overview of Child Welfare Systems

Child welfare systems generally do the following:

Receive and investigate reports of possible child abuse and neglect, provide services to families that need assistance in the protection and care of their children, arrange for children to live with kin or with foster families when they are not safe at home, and arrange for reunification, adoption, or other permanent family connections for children leaving foster care.

Public and private agencies also work to provide services such as “in-home family preservation services, foster care, residential treatment, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, parenting skills classes, domestic violence services, employment assistance, and financial or housing assistance.”

The Children’s Bureau, part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is the primary federal institution working with state and local agencies to implement federal child and family legislation. Collaboratively, they create programs that prevent child abuse and neglect. Such efforts are authorized by the Child Abuse and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974. CAPTA provides “federal funding to states in support of prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities” and awards “grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations for demonstration programs and projects.”

The Process

First, a concerned person reports suspected child abuse or neglect. More often than not, this person is a “mandatory reporter,” a person required by law to submit a report if he or she suspects child abuse or neglect. Mandatory reporters include individuals who have regular contact with children such as social workers, school personnel, healthcare workers, mental health professionals, child care providers, medical examiners or coroners, and law enforcement officers. Approximately 48 states and other territories have mandatory reporter laws. In many states, every person, regardless of occupation, is legally required to make such a report.

After a report is submitted, it is either “screened in” or “screened out” depending on the amount of information and sufficiency of evidence. If a report is screened in, a Child Protective Services Caseworker will come in and assess the situation. He or she will talk to the child and relatives. If a child is suspected of being in immediate danger, then the child will be brought to a shelter, foster home, or relative’s house while the investigation plays out. At the end of the investigation, the case worker will typically either find the case unsubstantiated or substantiated depending on the evidence. The agency can then initiate a court action if it feels the authority of juvenile court is required during the trial in order to remove the child from the home. In substantiated cases where there has been child abuse or neglect, the threat is labeled as low, moderate, or high. Depending on the severity of the case, the caseworker may recommend community-based resources and service systems, or recommend complete removal of the child from the home. Low-risk parents are often provided support or treatment services, while high-risk parents may be indicted on criminal charges.

Child Welfare System Challenges

Many of the most severe challenges in the Child Welfare System lie in the Foster Care System. Nearly 400,000 children in the United States are living in the foster care system without permanent families.

Over-Institutionalization of Children

You don’t need to be a licensed therapist to know that a positive family dynamic is essential to a child’s well being and mental health. Today, a disturbing amount of children in the child welfare system are placed in institutions rather than homes. Approximately 57, 000 children are living in group placements. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, a children’s advocacy group, recently published a report on this serious issue, advocating that “secure attachments provided by nurturing caregivers are vital to a child’s healthy physical, social, emotional and psychological development throughout his life.”

Children in group placements are at greater risk of abuse and arrest. One in seven children in the child welfare system lives in group placements and 40 percent of those children do not have “documented behavioral or medical need that would warrant placement in such a restrictive setting.” Young people stay in group placements for an average of eight months, although research recommends a stay of three-to-six months for those who require residential treatment. Kids in group placements also suffer from an inappropriate mixing of ages. According to the Society of Research in Child Development, young adults are more susceptible to peer influence. Younger children can suffer from being placed with older kids with behavioral health problems.

Insufficient Background Checks

A major source of controversy in the child welfare system is adequate background checks performed by case workers. There is an overload of cases of foster parents with a criminal background taking in children. For example, Oklahoma is currently under investigation for child abuse and neglect in its foster care system. A recent report, conducted after the death of a 20-month-old boy in foster care, showed that less than 5 percent of the 125 cases investigated for abuse in Oklahoma contained criminal background checks for foster parents.

Caseloads

Caseworkers across all child welfare systems consistently have extensive caseloads. The more cases, the less time and effort a caseworker can devote to each individual child. It also minimizes the ability for a child and caseworker to develop a meaningful relationship, and caseworkers are sometimes blamed for child abuse or neglect in foster homes under their supervision. For example, Catherine Davis, a family services agency caseworker in New Jersey, was suspended after seven-year-old Faheem Williams was found starved to death in his home. His two brothers were also malnourished and burned. Davis had somewhere between 99 and 107 cases. The Child Welfare League of America recommends that “workers carrying ongoing in-home protective services cases…carry no more than 15-17 families.”

Aging Out

When foster children turn 18, they age out of the child welfare system. Many of these children move forward with very little or no support at all. In 2012, 23, 396 foster children aged out of the system. Almost 40 percent were homeless or couch surfing, and 48 percent were unemployed. Fifty percent experienced issues with substance abuse, while 60 percent of the young men had been criminally charged. Nearly a quarter of those aging out did not obtain a high school diploma or GED, and only six percent had graduated with a two or four-year degree.

Case Study: Active Class-Action Suit MD. vs Perry

On behalf of the children in the Texas child welfare system, the Children’s Rights Law Firm of New York, along with co-counsel Haynes & Boone, Yetter Coleman and Canales & Simonson, filed suit against the state of Texas  for “violations of plaintiff children’s constitutional rights, including their right not to be harmed while in state custody and their right to familial association.”

M.D. is one representative of the plaintiff children. She entered foster care at the age of eight. Although initially sent to live with relatives, she returned to state custody after sexual abuse occurred in the home. She moved to multiple placements, including group institutions, where her mental health suffered. When the original complaint was filed, M.D. “lived in a restrictive short-term therapeutic placement with no visitors or basic privileges.”

The main focus of Children’s Rights in this suit is to give children in the Texas welfare care system permanency, whether obtained from reunification with relatives or adoption. Children’s Rights primarily looked at cases where the child had been in foster care for a minimum of 12-18 months, as after a year to a year and a half, foster children’s success rates plummet. Chances for emotional and psychological distress increase and they often act out and exhibit unruly behavior, severely ruining their chances for adoption/permanency. Children without a permanent home age-out without any kind of safety net.

The suit was filed March 29, 2011 and is currently in progress. Children’s Rights is currently in litigation with eight other states as well.

Conclusion

Child welfare systems are broken and reform is inevitable. Travesties occur way too often and are not publicized enough. We need to give foster children a fighting chance to survive on their own after 18. That starts with creating a safe and permanent environment for them while in the welfare system. Turning 18, after a lifetime of struggle and little support, does not make an adult. Fortunately, there are multiple advocacy groups across the country on a mission for reform.

Sources

Primary

Child Welfare Information Gateway: How the Child Welfare System Works

Additional

AFSCME: Caseloads

Annie E. Casey Foundation: Too Many Kids in U.S. Child Welfare Systems Not Living in Families

CCAI: Facts and Statistics

Children’s Rights: In Oklahoma, Asking a Few Questions Might Have Prevented a Boy’s Tragic Death

Child Welfare Information Gateway: Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect

The New York Times: Caseworkers Say Overload Makes it Risky For Children

Society of Research in Child Development: The Detrimental Effects of Group Placements/Services For Youth With Behavioral Health Problems

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Child Welfare System: Kids Falling Through the Cracks appeared first on Law Street.

3D printers have revolutionized a multitude of industries. Although they have been around for the last 30 years, people know very little about them. The first few rounds of 3D printers have been crazy expensive, isolating them from the general consumer market. Although there have been buzz-worthy exceptions, the printers have traditionally been out of reach for the general public. But for those with access, like those in the military and medical fields, 3D printing is allowing wonders. As of last year, a new wave of 3D printing seems to have taken off. Less technically advanced versions have hit the everyday market. You can now find them in your average hardware store. The future of this innovation seems limitless. 3D printers could be a household item in the not-too-distant future. With that in mind, institutions like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are already discussing regulations. Read on to learn more about 3D printing and what’s in store for the innovative technology.

 What is 3D Printing?

A 3D printer creates compact, three-dimensional products compared to the average printer that produces an image on paper with ink. The materials used for 3D printing are endless, but include plastic, wax, resin, paper, gold, and titanium. The printer jets are directed by computer-assisted design software to “create an object by spraying or squeezing one thin layer of material at a time onto the platform, then melding them into place with a precisely directed laser.” The culmination of layers eventually form the desired object.

First you must create a virtual design of the intended object. This is done in a Computer Aided Design File using a 3D modeling program. You can also use a 3D scanner in order to make a 3D digital copy of an already existing object before entering it into a 3D modeling program. The software then cuts the final model from the digital file into “hundreds or thousands of horizontal layers” and prints the object “layer by layer,” to ultimately produce a three-dimensional object.

Unlike typical manufacturing processes, 3D printing is an additive process, not a subtractive one. Typically, material is cut away from a larger whole to produce a desired object. The layer-by-layer process of 3D printing is “highly efficient because there is virtually no wastage.” As a bonus, the resulting product can be more minutely detailed and up to 60 percent lighter in weight than a traditionally manufactured product.

Common 3D Printing Methods

Selective Laser Sintering (SLS)

In this method, the 3D printer lays “high power particles of plastic, metal, ceramic or glass powders” into a specific 3D form. The chosen materials placed in the printer are fused layer by layer on top of a powder bed. After the creation of each layer, “the powder bed is lowered one layer thickness.” The process repeats for each new layer until the desired object is created. The unused powder base remains as a support structure and extra can be used for another printing project.

Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM)

Any home 3D printer would most likely use FDM. In this process, the printer, “extrude[s] a stream of heated or melted thermoplastic material” in the additive layer-by-layer process. Thermoplastic material becomes pliable or moldable at a specific temperature and solidifies again once cooled. As the material leaves the printer through an extrusion nozzle, the material should immediately harden and take the desired shape.

Practical Application

The U.S. Army and 3D-Printed Food

To create 3D-printed food, ingredients are placed in the printer’s cartridge and dispensed in the additive layer-by-layer process to create specific foods. The U.S. Army is looking to develop 3D technology that ultimately creates food that can sustain a warfare environment.

Supplying durable and nutritious food for soldiers in combat is difficult, especially long term. 3D printers offer a possible ingenious solution–3D technology can print food specific to a soldier’s dietary needs. First, a solider would undergo an initial scan that sends nutritional information back to the computer software. If a solider is experiencing a certain vitamin deficiency, for example, a 3D printer can then dispense food that nourishes that individual’s needs.

According to Lauren Oleksyk, a leading food technologist at the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, “some companies are actually considering 3D printing meat or meat alternatives based on plant products that contain the protein found in meat.” As of today, 3D-printed food is only created in powder or liquid forms. Further research will determine if the creation of printed solid food is possible. Military experts and 3D scientists predict soldiers will be eating printed food by 2025.

Medical 3D Developments: Prosthetic Hands

State-of-the-art prosthetic devices are extremely expensive, costing thousands of dollars. 3D printing offers a cheaper alternative. One in one thousand babies are born each year with missing fingers and others lose them due to injuries. Many parents find investing in a costly prosthetic replacement for a growing child impractical as it will need to be soon replaced with another. With 3D technology, the materials used for a prosthetic hand, for example, can cost as little as $20-$50. There are also various volunteer organizations available that share machines and software plans with others in need.

3D prosthetic hands are often made to look fun and colorful for children. They can be made with fluorescent or glow-in-the-dark colors. The Cyborg Beast model “looks like a limb from a Transformer,” while the Raptor Hand and Talon Hand models, “hint at comic-book superpowers.”

The above video shows a 3D-printed prosthetic hand that can open and close by flexing the wrist. This pulls on cables called tendons. Each piece is printed individually and assembled afterward. The printing process is about 20 hours, while assembly takes about two or three hours. Ivan Owen, one of the 3D-printed hands inventors, claimed “it is not much harder than putting together a complex Lego kit.”

The easy accessibility due to volunteers and openly shared machines and software and low cost make 3D prosthetic replacements a true medical wonder. Prosthetic hands are just one of the ways in which 3D technology is changing the face of prosthetics.

Regulations

Regulations must be put into effect for safety, especially as 3D technology enters the medical arena. The FDA states that it regulates 3D devices in essentially the same way it regulates non-3D devices, although there are added questions in the review process. Medical manufacturing companies can conventionally distribute medical devices in a few sizes. With 3D printing, these same products can be inexpensively tailored to the individual. Oxford Performance Materials, a Connecticut-based biomedical firm, printed a cranial prosthetic that replaced 75 percent of a man’s skull. All this innovation, however, must be checked. FDA medical engineer James Coburn explains, “We typically ask manufacturers to put safeguards on their products so you can’t go beyond the design space, so that when you’re patient-matching a device to someone, it will tell you when you have exceeded that limit and won’t let you push beyond it.” This also protects individuals with 3D printers from printing a dangerous device.

3D-printed products in the aviation field are also monitored. They must be fire-resistant and reliable. The Federal Aviation Association (FAA) looks for 3D products that meet or exceed the characteristics of their non-3D counterparts. For example, Custom Control Concepts, a company that “builds tailored interiors for high-end luxury jets,” finds it difficult to win FAA approval. The company uses Ultam (one of the only FAA-approved 3D plastics) and uses an FAA approved on-site testing laboratory. As another example, GE Aviation “uses in-process monitoring” to make sure that the pieces match standards and “puts every third part through a scanner and X-ray it.”

This GE Aviation video demonstrates the making of a 3D jet engine and shows a safety test in progress.

There is also the fear that 3D printing can be used to create weapons. On May 5, 2013 the first 3D gun, called the Liberator, was printed by Defense Distributed, an American organization lead by a “25-year-old Texas law student and committed libertarian named Cody Wilson.” In 2014, Congressman Steve Israel (R-NY) introduced legislation that would fully ban 3D guns. Although it was not successful, he plans to reintroduce legislation that would once again ban 3D guns and all completely plastic firearms. Israel argued:

My legislation is about making sure that we have laws in place to ensure that criminals and terrorists can’t produce guns that can easily be made undetectable. Security checkpoints will do little good if criminals can produce plastic firearms and bring those firearms through metal detectors into secure areas like airports or courthouses.

It is yet to be seen whether this legislation will make it through.

 Conclusion

We have only just seen the beginning of 3D printing. It could enter our everyday lives in force within the next couple of years. Regulations and perfecting various products have slowed the general trend, but the kinks and safety approvals will eventually work themselves out. Researchers and scientists are dedicated to perfecting this new art. The benefits seem utterly limitless. It seems right to invest time, money, and effort into any machine that can give patients new limbs or keep U.S. soldiers healthy, but it’s important to make sure that it’s all done as safely as possible.

Resources

3D Printing: What is 3D Printing?

National Geographic: What, Exactly, is a 3D Printer?

3D Printing for Beginners: A Comprehensive Introduction to 3D Printing Technology

Fed Scoop: How the FDA Regulates 3D devices

Financial Times: Regulatory Concerns Hold Back 3D Printing on Safety

Forbes: US Army Looks to 3D Print Food For Soldiers

Live Science: What is Stereolithography?

The New York Times: Hand of a Superhero

NPR: Army Eyes 3D Printed Food For Soldiers

Popular Mechanics: Should We Be Afraid of the 3D Printed Gun?

Wired: Bill to Ban Undetectable 3D Printed Guns is Coming Back

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Regulating the Innovative World of 3D Printing appeared first on Law Street.

Counterfeit drugs pose both domestic and global threats, presenting serious health risks worldwide. Although the issue is most prevalent outside the United States, Americans aren’t immune to the illegal market’s reach, as there have been far-reaching counterfeit drug cases in the U.S. As a result, there’s been a large effort to combat the problem in America. Read on to learn more about the proliferation of counterfeit drugs, and what’s being done to stop them.

What are counterfeit drugs?

According to the World Health Organization (WHO):

Counterfeit medicine is one which is deliberately and fraudulently mislabeled with respect to identity and/or source. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products and counterfeit products may include products with the correct ingredients or with the wrong ingredients, without active ingredients, with insufficient active ingredients or with fake packaging.

The issue was first addressed in the 1995 WHO Conference of Experts on Rational Drug Use in Nairobi, Kenya. Since then, the market has expanded, but preventive measures have also multiplied. Most counterfeited drugs consist of antibiotics, hormones, analgesics, steroids, and antihistamines. In all, counterfeit drugs are divided into six categories: products without active ingredients (32.1 percent of counterfeits), products with incorrect quantities of active ingredients (20.2 percent of counterfeits), products with wrong ingredients (21.4 percent of counterfeits), products with correct quantities of active ingredients but with fake packaging (15.6 percent of counterfeits), copies of an original product (1 percent of counterfeits), and products with high levels of impurities and contaminants (8.5 percent of counterfeits).

The FDA believes the growth in the counterfeit drug market may be due to the escalating costs of prescription drugs, advanced technologies to develop counterfeit drugs, and the anonymity and ease of the internet.

Health Risks

The severity of the risk factors for any specific counterfeit drug will vary. Generally, they can actively cause unexpected side effects, an allergic reaction, the worsening of the existing medical condition, and/or prolong treatment periods.

A counterfeit drug that substitutes an inert substance for the active ingredient will not improve a person’s medical condition. For example, the main ingredient in Lipitor (a commonly counterfeited drug in the U.S.) is atorvastatin. Its purpose is to lower high cholesterol and triglyceride levels, and therefore reduce the risk of stroke and heart attack. If a patient believes he/she is taking atorvastatin, but in fact is consuming an inert substance, the consequences could be deadly. Even worse, in some cases, not all substituted or added substances are inert, but are instead hazardous.

 U.S. and Global Statistics About Counterfeit Drugs

The international counterfeit drug market amasses $200 billion a year. Internet sales make up $75 billion of that market. Most counterfeits are made in China and India. In the United States, 80 percent of counterfeit medicine is brought into the country from outside.

The WHO estimates that up to ten percent of the drugs sold internationally are counterfeit. In some countries this number can reach up to 50 percent. Developed countries that have strict regulations and institutions like the FDC, are estimated to sell less than one percent of counterfeit drugs. However, the United States has seen its share of highly publicized cases. With a few exceptions, the United States counterfeit market is generally focused on “lifestyle” drugs like diet, erectile dysfunction, and hair growth pills.

The counterfeit market is growing in the U.S. In 2014, an estimated 60 various Pfizer products were being counterfeited compared to just 20 in 2008. One of the most popular counterfeited pharmacy items is ChapStick. China reported holding 1,300 alleged counterfeiters and confiscating $362 million worth of counterfeit product in 2013.

According to the WHO, an estimated 200,000 people die a year due to “ineffective, fake, and substandard malaria drugs” that don’t eliminate parasites from a person’s system. To make matters worse, the fake drugs often contain a smaller dosage of the active ingredient than necessary. Thus the fake drug cures symptoms without curing the disease and fuels drug-resistant strands.

Counterfeit Drugs in the U.S.

A counterfeit maker of Avastin, a cancer drug, accessed the U.S. supply chain in 2012. This was the first major exception to the notion that counterfeits in the U.S. were limited to lifestyle drugs. Undetected, doctors and purchasing managers for oncology clinics “bought and administered the counterfeit medicines to their patients.”

In May 2012, a counterfeit version of Teva Pharmaceutical’s Adderall 30 mg tablets entered the market. The FDA labeled the counterfeit “unsafe, ineffective, and potentially harmful.” The counterfeit version did not contain the active ingredients dextroamphetamine saccharate, amphetamine aspartate, dextroamphetamine sulfate, and amephtamine sulfate. Instead, it contained ineffective ingredients tramadol and acetaminophen. The original product is orange and peach in color with markings, while the counterfeit is white and devoid of any markings. Entering the counterfeit market for Adderall was probably seen as a lucrative opportunity, as Adderall is on the FDA’s drug shortage list, which means that it is dispersed only when available.

The drug Procrit, used to treat anemic patients with “cancer and other serious diseases,” had a large counterfeit scare in 2013. FDA investigators found three fake batches bearing three different lot numbers and expiration dates. The fake medicines contained a clear liquid with no active ingredient and two life-threatening strains of bacteria. Not only was patients’ anemia going unchecked, but already-weak patients were consuming potentially deadly bacteria. The FDA dispersed a warning to the public and provided ways to check the authenticity of the product.

Precautions to Avoid Counterfeit Drugs

There are ways to help ensure that patients and customers purchase legitimate prescription drugs. Most counterfeited drugs are sold through the internet. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy investigated 10,000 pharmaceutical sites and found that only three percent of the sites appeared “to be in compliance with pharmacy laws and practice standards.”

Internet sites to be avoided include those outside the United States; those that don’t offer a physical address; those that don’t display a license by the applicable state board of pharmacy;  those that don’t provide a licensed pharmacist to answer questions; and sites that don’t require a prescription. Consumers should also look for the Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Sites (VIPPS) seal. There are over 30 online pharmacies that display this seal, which was created by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy to combat sites selling counterfeit drugs.

Consumers must also be cautious when inspecting the packaging of their product by looking for altered or unsealed containers or any physical differences in the appropriate packaging or product appearance. A change in taste and side effects could signal counterfeits as well.

 Actions Against Counterfeit Drugs

In 2012, the United States and 110 other countries participated in INTERPOL’s Pangea sting operation. The operation resulted in:

11,000 illegal online pharmacies being shut down, the removal 19,000 ads for fake drugs on social media sites, the seizure of 9.4 million doses of phony medicines…Google agreed to spend $50 million annually over the next five years to crack down on advertising for illegal online pharmacies.

Pharmaceutical companies also have their own internal investigations to fight against counterfeit medicines. For example, one method is similar to fingerprinting. Pfizer designed an infrared spectrometer that analyzes a product’s chemical bonds. Every drug has unique “reflected and absorbed wavelengths.” A graph will produce peaks and valleys–like a fingerprint–depending on the ingredients and their quantities. Those in the Pfizer lab can superimpose fake “fingerprints” over the real ones on the computer and note the differences. Further testing with X-ray diffraction can show exactly what ingredients the fake is composed of.

In 2014, Eli Lilly, an Indianapolis-based pharmaceutical company, invested $110 million in creating traceable, unique stamping codes for all of its products sold globally. The stamping codes will allow the company to trace each product from manufacturing facility to patient, and combat fakes.

The Legal Side of Drug Counterfeiting

The Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987 (modified in 1992) effectively closed off the United States supply chain. The law directly aimed at protecting American consumers and avoiding counterfeit drugs by providing legal safeguards. It “provides that prescription drug products manufactured in the United States and exported can no longer be reimported, except by the product’s manufacturer.” It also provides uniform standards for all distribution channels including hospitals and wholesalers.

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act was enacted in July 2012. It granted the FDA new and enhanced powers to regulate prescription drugs and combat counterfeit drugs in the U.S. The FDA, for example, can now “administratively detain drugs believed to be adulterated or misbranded, and the authority to destroy certain adulterated, misbranded, or counterfeit drugs offered for import.”

The 2013 Drug Quality and Security Act “outlines critical steps to build an electronic, interoperable system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs as they are distributed in the United States.” Pharmaceutical companies must implement a tracking system by 2015 and tag serial numbers to each singular unit sold in the U.S. by 2017.

Conclusion

The counterfeiting of medicines is not a problem secluded to developing countries. Without proactive enforcement, counterfeit drugs could erupt in the United States. It is a highly lucrative industry for the black market. Pharmaceutical companies and consumers alike need to be responsible with prescription drugs, as the potential health risks can be deadly. This is a global problem that requires global cooperation.

Resources

Primary

FDA: Counterfeit Drugs, Questions and Answers

CDC: Counterfeit Drugs

FDA: Counterfeit Drugs

Additional

Nova Next: Cracking Down on Counterfeit Drugs

CBS News: Your Anemia Drug May Be Fake

Fierce Pharma: Lilly Steps up War on Counterfeits With $110M Serialization Program

HRF: 20 Shocking Counterfeit Drug Statistics

Medscape: Counterfeit Version of Adderall Unsafe, Ineffective, FDA Warns

PhRMA: Counterfeit Drugs

National Center for Biotechnology Information: The Prescription Drug Act of 1987

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The United States Isn’t Immune to Counterfeit Drugs appeared first on Law Street.

On New Year’s Day 2014, it became legal in Colorado to sell marijuana in specially licensed dispensaries to adults 21 years and older. Much like any liquor store, you can walk in, show your ID, and make your purchase. But the dispensaries don’t just sell marijuana you smoke; you can also buy edibles, as well–marijuana you eat. As a newly legal product, the state was in uncharted territory. As we fast forward a little more than a year later, what are the state regulations on edibles, what effects have the sale of edibles had, and are other states following suit?

What is edible Marijuana?

The Science

Cannabis, or marijuana, has three primary active compounds: THC, CBD, and CBG. THC is the only psychoactive ingredient. CBD and CBG have medicinal properties and alter the effects of THC. The drug reacts with the body’s endocannabinoid system, a “regulatory mechanism that modulates the release of compounds produced throughout the body,” and causes humans to experience a high. Marijuana can be vaporized, smoked, or consumed orally.

When marijuana is smoked or vaporized, delta-9-THC is absorbed through the lungs and heads straight to the brain. The onset high is relatively quicker and shorter than if marijuana is eaten. When the marijuana is consumed and digested by the liver, the delta-9-THC turns into 11-hydroxy-THC. The transformation causes the THC to quickly bypass the blood-brain barrier and produce a more psychedelic effect than smoked THC. Smoked and vaporized marijuana completely sidestep the liver and the THC never converts.

While the high from smoking marijuana is faster, edible highs last longer. When smoking marijuana, 50 to 60 percent of the THC in a joint can reach the blood plasma. The peak of the high can come after five to 10 minutes of smoking. In comparison, only ten to 20 percent of the THC in edibles hit the blood plasma and the high takes effect an hour or two later. The high from edible marijuana is described as a “whole body” high and can last from six to ten hours. Essentially, people experience the highs from smoking eating marijuana differently.

Why would someone choose edibles over smoking?

Although the high from edibles lasts longer, it isn’t necessarily stronger. The high from smoking is rapid and strong, and the effects wear off rather quickly. It is also relatively easy to know when you’ve reached a limit since the high is so immediate. One answer could be personal choice–some people prefer the experience of edibles. Edibles could also alleviate any problems a person has with consuming smoke, and coughing fits are essentially eliminated.

Also, edibles are inconspicuous. A person eating won’t invite attention the way someone smoking will. This is probably most important to medicinal marijuana patients. Amanda Reiman, policy manager of the California Drug Policy Alliance, explains that “people using marijuana medicinally for long-lasting chronic pain often prefer oral ingestion because it lasts longer and they don’t have to consume as often.” Bob Eschino, a partner at Medically Correct, says “They’re discreet, and it’s an easy way to dose the medication…especially here in Colorado, where you can’t smoke in public, you can still medicate with edibles.”

Edible Products

The sky seems to be the limit. Marijuana comes in the form of cookies, gummies, brownies, caramels, hard candies, chocolate bars, Rice Krispies treats, and beyond. Colorado dispensaries estimate edibles account for 20-40 percent of sales. Nearly five million edibles were sold in Colorado in 2014. For example, Dixie Elixirs, a popular cannabis products store, sold THC-infused mints, truffles, dew drops, whipped cream, coffee, and tea all in a variety of flavors. There are plenty of companies getting onboard. In an interview just this past February, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream even stated they would experiment with cannabis-infused ice cream if legal hurdles were removed.

Health Concerns

A major issue when ingesting marijuana is a person’s inability to predict the right amount to take. In order to receive the intended effect, there are many factors to take into consideration. Dosage is based on the type of marijuana, tolerance, body weight, gender, body chemistry, and more. The issue is further exacerbated by the fact that an edible’s effect can take an hour to two hours to reach its height. This prompts impatient people to ingest more.

The Cannabist, which seeks to educate readers about marijuana, recommends the following steps to be safe. First, a user must acknowledge his or her drug history and tolerance and recognize body factors like body type and gender when ascertaining the proper dosage. Also, it’s recommended when eating an edible to have a full stomach or to do so while also consuming food. Next, a user should measure by milligrams. A unit is generally ten milligrams of cannabinoids. A user should stick to a brand that works for him after lightly experimenting with a variety. Be patient, and cautious.

Controversy arose after a string of tragic incidents occurred involving edible marijuana. Levy Thamba, a Wyoming college student, committed suicide by jumping from a hotel balcony after eating an entire marijuana-infused cookie. The recommend dosage was probably only a portion of that cookie. Lack of portion control knowledge is a problem. Al Bronstein, a physician and medical director of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, explains “[portion control is] difficult to do, practically. I know, myself: I wish I could only eat one-eighth of a Snickers bar and leave the rest for later.” Another concern is that consumers don’t realize that ten milligrams refers to one-tenth of a candy bar, for example, as opposed to the entire thing.

A Colorado man was accused of killing his wife after consuming pot candy. This man is thought to also have been on prescription drugs. As with alcohol, it is extremely dangerous to mix marijuana and prescription drugs.

Another major concern is children accidentally ingesting edibles that look like their non-marijuana-infused counterparts. According to a 2013 JAMA Pediatrics study, Children’s Hospital Colorado saw a “significant spike in the number of children treated for accidentally eating marijuana-laced treats” after the new marijuana-based laws were set in place. In one month, three seventh graders were hospitalized after ingesting marijuana-infused brownies.

The culmination of these events prompted public outcry that inspired new and stricter regulations on the selling and packaging of edible marijuana

Laws and Regulations

Stricter laws and regulations in Colorado went into effect on February 1, 2015 aimed at standardizing the labeling, packaging, and potency of edibles.

The recommend amount to take is one unit or ten milligrams. According to the new law, to avoid any consumer confusion, the serving portion must be transparently clear and marked “in a way that enables a reasonable person to intuitively determine how much of the product constitutes a single serving of active THC.” For example, Dixie Elixir’s marijuana-infused mints used to come in a loose tin of ten, with ten milligrams of THC each. They are now wrapped individually and sold at 16 mints of five milligrams apiece.

Packaging must now be child-resistant. Packages must be “constructed to be significantly difficult for children under five years of age to open…opaque so that the packaging does not allow the product to be seen without opening the packaging material…[and] resealable for any product intended for more than a single use.”

Labels must be more informative and give clear warning signs such as “This product is unlawful outside the State of Colorado” and/or “The intoxicating effects of this product may be delayed by two or more hours.” This specifically targets overdoses caused by impatience and overconsumption while a user is waiting for the drug to take effect.

The Marijuana Enforcement Agency now provides incentives for companies to sell ten milligram-portioned products. Manufacturers will face larger obstacles for production of ten to 100 milligram products.

Other Laws

Marijuana is still prohibited under federal law. This means you can still be fired for recreational use, and it can also lead to the loss of benefits, public housing, and financial aid.

Driving under the influence of marijuana will always be illegal, like alcohol. In Colorado, you can transport an unopened original package, but never across state lines. It is also forbidden to fly with marijuana even if you are traveling to another state with legalized marijuana.

You can obtain marijuana from a licensed dispensary or another adult over 21 as long as no money is exchanged. It is illegal to sell or resell any marijuana.

Alaska and Washington have also legalized marijuana for adult use with similar regulations. Washington D.C. and Oregon are following suit, but certain aspects of regulation have yet to go into effect. A total of 23 states allow marijuana for medical necessity.

Conclusion

Education and clear information are both vital. The tragedies surrounding edible marijuana seem like they most likely could have been avoided if these regulations were initially set in place, but it is hard to say for sure. Legalized marijuana, including edibles and other products, remains a new territory. New consumers need to learn what is safe and right for them as a learning curve is involved. If you are going to try it, it is important to be as informed as possible and in a safe environment. In the future, additional states may follow suit and legalize marijuana, and these questions will remain essential to keeping everyone as safe as possible.

Resources

Primary

Colorado Department of Revenue: Retail Marijuana Regulations

Additional

ABC News: Why Marijuana Edibles Might Be More Dangerous Than Smoking

Cannabist: Get Educated About Edibles: Eight Tips For Getting the Right Dose

Cannabist: New Rules in Effect for Colorado Marijuana Edibles Feb. 1

CBS: Colorado Moves to Curb Dangers of Edible Pot Products

BoingBoing: Everything You Need to Know about Marijuana Edibles

Consumer Responsibly: Know the Law

Denver Post: More Than 15 Months in, Pot-infused Edibles Still Confound

Dixie Elixirs: Products

Huffington Post: Ben & Jerry’s Founders Are Totally Down With Weed Ice Cream When It’s Legal

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marijuana Edibles: A New Challenge for Regulators appeared first on Law Street.

When we envision space, we tend to imagine an intense beauty unknown to this world. We certainly don’t imagine a junk yard. But what is space actually like? Well, unfortunately it seems to be moving a bit more in the junk yard direction. Last year, Alfonso Cuarόn’s Oscar-winning film “Gravity” brought attention to the issue. Although the movie was dramatized and at times inaccurate according to NASA standards, the problem of orbital debris–space trash–is very real.

There are millions of objects of varying sizes orbiting the Earth at any given moment, and even though these objects are visually hidden to us and thousands of miles away, orbital debris affects everyone. Satellites control aspects of our everyday life like On-Demand features, cellphones, Google Earth, weather reports, and navigation systems. More importantly, satellites facilitate military communication and intelligence. In response to the problem, a second generation Space Fence run by the U.S. Air Force (USAF) should be up and running by 2019. Read on to learn everything you need to know about orbital debris and the Space Fence.

What is Orbital Debris?

Orbital Debris, or space trash, consists of man-made objects currently orbiting the Earth that do not serve a useful purpose. Debris is created every time a spacecraft separates from its launch vehicle. It is also created from dead satellites, explosions, collisions, chipped paint from spacecrafts, and small particle impacts. Since humans started placing objects in orbit over the last 50 years, the amount of debris has only increased.

Orbital debris is placed into three categories based on size. Larger objects, above ten cm, account for some 21,000 pieces of orbital debris. Medium particles, between one and ten cm, account for approximately 500,000 objects. Smaller pieces, less than one cm, account for over 100 million objects. These pieces move extremely fast, reaching speeds of up to five miles per second or 18,000 miles per hour. A collision at this rate is devastating. NASA equates being hit by an orbital object less than half an inch around and moving at six miles per second to being hit by a bowling ball moving at 300 miles per hour.

Space Safety

All of this debris is ultimately dangerous for astronauts and the International Space Station. Spacesuits are designed to protect against micrometeoroids, which are pieces of orbital debris the size of grains of sand. They use materials like those used for bulletproof vests. The International Space Station is the “most heavily shielded spacecraft ever,” able to withstand impacts from smaller debris. The station can also alter course to avoid larger objects coming toward it. Space shuttles generally return to Earth with cracks and evidence of impacts on their windows. For this reason, windows are protected three fold and replaced every mission.

Orbital Duration

Most other orbital debris disintegrates reentering Earth. In the rare occurrences that objects do make it back, they generally fall into bodies of water or unpopulated land areas like the Canadian tundra or Australian Outback. Over the past 50 years, approximately one catalogued piece of orbital debris has landed on Earth each day and there have been no reported human injuries. The higher the altitude, the longer an object will stay in orbit. Debris in a lower orbit will remain for only several years. On the opposite side of the spectrum, debris above 1,000 km from Earth can remain in orbit for over a century.

What is the Space Fence?

The Space Fence aims to tackle the problem of orbital debris. The project is led by the U.S. Air Force Materiel Command’s Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts. It is a system designed to track debris in the Space Surveillance Network in order to initiate a warning system. The idea is very similar to that of hurricane or tornado tracking systems. The term “fence” comes from the “narrow, continent-wide planar energy field in space” created from the transmitters and receivers used in the project. High frequency radar acts like a “flashlight beam in a dark room that illuminates the bits of dust swirling around.”

The first Space Fence was decommissioned in 2013. It initially tracked 5,396 objects in 1980 and was tracking 15,639 objects by 2010. There were a total of nine transmitters and receivers located at three transmitter sites: Jordan Lake, Alabama; Lake Kickapoo, Texas; and Gila River, Arizona. The six receivers were located at Tattnall, Georgia; Hawkinsville, Georgia; Silver Lake, Mississippi; Red River, Arkansas; Elephant Butte, New Mexico; and San Diego, California.

The new Space Fence’s higher frequency system, operating in the S-band frequency range, will allow the detection of much smaller satellites and orbital debris. Its “modern, net-centric architecture” will also allow more effective tracking in Earth’s lower and medium orbit. Over its lifetime, the new Space Fence is expected to be valued at $6.1 billion. The system will include “geographically dispersed ground-based radars to provide timely assessment of space objects, events, and debris.” There will be one large S-band radar placed in Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, with an option for a second based on funding. The projects also rely on international cooperation as part of global Space Situational Awareness efforts.

Who is building the Space Fence?

Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training, located in Moorestown, New Jersey, won the initial $914.7 million contract to build the second generation Space Fence in June 2014. Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company dedicated to researching and developing advanced technology systems, products, and services.

 Why are we building a new Space Fence now?

There are a few things we need to keep an eye on. The first major source of large orbital debris came from China’s intentional and sloppy destruction of its Fengyun-IC weather satellite in January 2007. The satellite was destroyed by an anti-satellite device that caused hundreds of pieces of varying sizes of orbital debris.

The second major event was the 2009 collision of the active American satellite Iridium and the defunct Russian satellite Cosmos. The American satellite weighed about 1,200 tons, making it the first large collision in space. The impact resulted in over 2,000 pieces of metal orbital debris. The video below shows a model of the collision and the debris it created.

Aside from these major events, researchers also fear the Kessler Syndrome. It is a theory, developed in 1978 by Donald Kessler, that describes a “self-sustaining cascading collision of orbital debris.” Essentially, the Kessler Syndrome is a domino effect. Two objects collide to cause pieces of debris that ultimately collide with one another to form more debris, and so on. The theory isn’t so far-fetched. In 2012, the United States issued over 10,000 close-call warnings that resulted in 75 avoidance maneuvers by satellite owners.

U.S. Policy on Orbital Debris

The U.S. first took an official stance to minimize orbital debris in 1988. A more recent June 2010 National Space Policy specifically addresses the issue of a clean space environment and orbital debris. NASA created an Orbital Debris Program Office at the Johnson Space Center in Texas. Its mission is to find ways for ventures to create less orbital debris and clean existing debris. Other U.S. agencies, like the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, also need to follow specific guidelines for their spacecrafts. U.S. Orbital Mitigation Standard Practices were approved in 2001.

Guidelines are also followed by Russia, China, Japan, France, and the European Space Agency. Although there isn’t an international treaty surrounding orbital debris, the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee was created among the leading international space agencies. Orbital debris is also a priority for the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the United Nations on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

Legal Issues

There are some legal issues inherent to cleaning up all the space debris. Each piece of large debris, like a defunct satellite, is technically owned by a country. For example, the U.S. doesn’t have authority to destroy a Chinese or Russian satellite. As Professor Johnson-Freese from the Naval War College said, “there are no salvage laws in space.” Under the current laws, one has to seek out permission from a satellite owner to go anywhere near it. This can make cleaning up space pretty tricky.

Conclusion

Orbital debris affects us down on Earth. We depend on a clear and safe space for many of the luxuries we take for granted. The Space Fence is one tool in the mission to create a clean space environment, but it is not enough. The Space Fence is only a tracking system; a plan needs to be enacted to deal with the orbital debris already in space. Moreover, guidelines for minimizing debris creation don’t remedy the harm that’s already been done. Some have proposed an international user fee for every launch to go into a global fund for space clean up. That idea has its own problems to sort through, like fair division, but it’s a start. We need to start taking the issue of the space environment seriously before the next major collision.

Resources

Primary

NASA Orbital Debris Program Office : Orbital Debris

NASA: What is Orbital Debris?

Additional

Defense Industry Daily: Don’t Touch Their Junk

Washington Post: Air Force to Award ‘Space Fence’ Contract to Track Orbital Debris

The New York Times: Debris Spews Into Space After Satellites Collide 

Space Answers: How Have Space Technologies Affected Life Back on Earth?

Space News: China’s Anti-Satellite Test

Space Safety Magazine: Kessler Syndrome

Washington Post: Space Trash is a Big Problem

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can a Space Fence Really Fix the Problem of Space Trash? appeared first on Law Street.

The blanket ban on Medicare coverage of sexual reassignment surgery, which had been in place since 1989, was lifted in May 2014. With this move, Medicare officially recognized sexual reassignment surgeries as non-experimental and medically necessary for some suffering from gender dysphoria. Many consider the lifted ban a major victory for transgender rights; however, the move also sparked controversy as many people felt Medicare needs to prioritize the coverage of other medical concerns. Read on to learn how and why Medicare made the decision to lift its ban on sexual reassignment surgery.

What does it mean to be transgender?

According to GLAAD, transgender is “an umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth.” “Transsexual” is an older term “preferred by some people who have permanently changed–or seek to change–their bodies through medical intervention.” Gender identity is a person’s innate sense of being female, male, or other. Gender expression is how “a person communicates gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, voice, or body characteristics.”

It’s important to note that being transgender is not considered a mental disorder as it does not cause significant distress or disability; however, those who identify as trans* have difficulty finding “affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination.” The culmination of these experiences can lead to higher levels of anxiety and/or depression than among the cisgender population.

What is Gender Dysphoria?

Gender Dysphoria It is a diagnosis given to people who “experience intense, persistent gender incongruence.” They do not identify with the physical sex they were assigned at birth. For an official diagnosis, the incongruence must last for at least six months. For children, the wish to be a different gender must be apparent and verbalized. People with gender dysphoria exhibit an overwhelming desire to be rid of his or her biological gender characteristics or “strong conviction that one has feelings and reactions typical of the other gender.” In order to cure gender dysphoria, some opt to undergo hormone therapies and or/medical surgeries.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) recommends a “real-life experience” and hormone therapy before surgery. A real-life experience is a specific duration of time that a transgender person must completely live as their desired gender while maintaining a mentally healthy and active lifestyle. People transitioning from male to female take testosterone-blocking agents along with female hormones like estrogen and progesterone in order to develop characteristics such as breasts, softer skin, and less body hair. Female to male candidates take testosterone in order to deepen the voice, shrink the breasts, and increase physical strength.

After hormone therapy, there are a plethora of surgical options. People transitioning from male to female may choose to undergo a breast augmentation, orchiectomy (removal of the testicles), penectomy (removal of the penis), vaginoplasty (creation of the vagina), clitoroplasty (creation of the clitoris), and/or labiaplasty (creation of labia). The new constructions are generally built from penile tissue. There is also voice modification surgery to deepen the voice. Transitioning from male to female generally costs $40,000 to $50,000. Female to male transition surgeries are less medically successful. Trans males can undergo a mastectomy (removal of the breast tissue), hysterectomy (removal of the uterus), and salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries). Patients can have a metoidioplasty (enlargement of the clitoris), but the construction of a penis has yet to be medically perfected. Collectively, transitioning from female to male costs about $75,000. Both trans females and trans males can receive cosmetic surgeries as well.

Medicare’s Prior Policy

Since 1989, Medicare specifically denied coverage for sex reassignment surgery under the National Coverage Determination 140.3. The decision was based on a 1981 National Center of Health Care Technology report, which stated:

Because of the lack of well controlled, long term studies of the safety and effectiveness of the surgical procedures and attendant therapies for transsexuals, the treatment is considered experimental. Moreover, there is a high rate of serious complications for these surgical procedures. For these reasons, transsexual surgery is not covered.

Basically, the surgeries were considered too risky and dangerous.

Since then, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association began advocating sex reassignment surgery as a productive, effective relief for victims of Gender Dysphoria. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Departmental Appeals Board overturned the decision in May 2014. The board stated that the policy was “based on outdated, incomplete, and biased science, and did not reflect contemporary medical science or standards of care.” This doesn’t mean candidates will automatically be approved for sex reassignment surgery, but approval or denial will be given based on individual cases, not a blanket policy.

Case Study: Denee Mallon

Medicare’s reevaluation of the ban started when 74-year-old army veteran Denee Mallon was denied her request for gender reassignment surgery by Medicare. In turn, she challenged the government insurance ban against sex reassignment surgeries.

After receiving the surgery, Mallon happily stated, “I feel congruent, like I’m finally one complete human being where my body matches my innermost feelings, my psyche. I feel complete.”

Mallon initially realized her gender identity when she was a 12 year old child in the 1940s. She continued to live as a man, having five kids and entering three marriages. When she could afford sex reassignment surgery in the late 70s and early 80s, her doctors refused to approve it because she was participating in consensual sex with women. When she finally received approval in the late 80s, she could no long afford it. She lived her life as a woman aided by hormonal therapy starting at age 40. She hid the fact that she was born male until 2012 when she became open about it and came out of what she calls “stealth mode.”

In response to critics calling being transgender a “lifestyle” choice, Mallon stated, “It’s far deeper than that. It’s so a part of my basic psyche, there’s no escaping it. I’ve tried to be the kind of man that society wanted and my feminine self just kept creeping up.”

Mallon decided to challenge Medicare after she was refused sex reassignment coverage by both her secondary private insurer and Medicare. She could not afford the expensive surgery living on $650 a month in Social Security income. The challenge and review process took about 18 months, before Medicare decided to lift the ban.

Pros of Lifting the Ban

Health Benefits

According to a British study, 88 percent of patients whounderwent male to female sexual reassignment surgery were content with the results. Those with Gender Dysphoria that undergo the transition process have substantial mental health improvement and a decrease in substance abuse and depression. According to a 2010 U.S. study, 41 percent of transgender people have attempted suicide. Sex reassignment surgery is a critical step in creating mental stability for some.

Marci Bowers, a transgender obstetrician and gynecologist in Burlingame, California, reported only two out of 1,300 people on whom she has performed sex reassignment surgery wanted to reverse the procedure. This is a 99.85 percent success rate.

Starting a Trend

The lifted ban is not only a significant win for transgender rights, but perhaps a catalyst for more change to come. Many public and private insurers take cues from the government. This could be the start of a long line of insurers securing coverage for these types of surgeries. In 2002, zero Fortune 500 companies offered transgender benefits. Ten years later, 19 percent did, and by 2014 it was 28 percent.

As of today, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Oregon, Massachusetts, Washington, Illinois, New York, Vermont, and Washington D.C. have banned anti-transgender discrimination in health insurance, and they legally require insurers to provide transgender health insurance.

Backlash

The first attempt to lift the ban came in 2013, but there were protests from conservative and religious groups. Defenders of the ban don’t believe these types of surgeries should be paid for by tax payer money.

Leanna Baumer, a senior legislative assistant with the Family Research Council, stated:

Real compassion for those struggling with a gender identity disorder is to offer mental health treatments that help men and women become comfortable with their actual biological sex — not to advocate for costly and controversial surgeries subsidized by taxpayers.

Frank Schubert, national political director for the National Organization for Marriage, doesn’t believe condoning the surgery sends the right message to America’s youth “to respect who they are, how they were born.”

Conclusion

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that an overwhelming majority of those who undergo sex reassignment surgery for Gender Dysphoria find a substantial increase in their quality of life. In a demographic that experiences high rates of depression and suicide, the importance of these procedures is clear. The high expense of these surgeries essentially eliminates the option if they aren’t covered by insurance. Most people don’t have an extra $50,000 to spend on treatment for any medical condition. The lifted ban holds important symbolic value for the future and what’s to come.

Resources

Primary

American Psychological Association: What Does Transgender Mean?

Additional

Advocate: HHS to Reevaluate Ban on Gender-Confirming Surgeries

How Stuff Works: Stages of Gender Reassignment

NBC News: Sex Reassignment Surgery at 74

GLAAD: GLAAD Media Reference Guide

National Center for Transgender Equality: Know Your Rights

Trans Health Care: List of U.S. States That Have Banned Anti-Transgender Discrimination in Health Insurance

USA Today: Medicare ban on sex reassignment surgery lifted

Washington Post: Ban Lifted on Medicare Coverage For Sex Change Surgery

Washington Post: Here’s How Sex Reassignment Surgery Works

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sexual Reassignment Surgery: The Path to Medicare Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

Skin cancer is the most common type of cancer in the United States. Some forms of skin cancer cause disfigurements and some  are fatal. Either way, skin cancer is nothing to take lightly. There are a variety of factors that account for the prevalence of skin cancer. In recent years, tanning beds have especially come under attack for their part in steadily increasing skin cancer diagnoses in the United States, especially for young people. Fortunately, not all is lost. Researchers are creating innovative skin cancer trials that are seeing encouraging results, while government officials promote state and federal policies to reduce the risks of skin cancer.

What is Skin Cancer?

Skin cancer is defined as:

The uncontrolled growth of abnormal skin cells. It occurs when unrepaired DNA damage to skin triggers mutations, or genetic defects, that lead the skin cells to multiply rapidly and form malignant tumors.

What are the most common types of skin cancer?

Basal Cell Carcinoma (BCC) is the most common form of skin cancer. In the U.S., 2.8 million cases of BCCs were diagnosed in 2010 and those numbers continue to increase. BCCs are “abnormal, uncontrolled growths or lesions” that form in the skin’s basal cells. Basal cells outline the outermost layer of the skin. BCCs resemble open sores, red patches, pink growths, shiny bumps, or scars. In most cases, both long-term sun exposure and short intense sun exposure can lead to the formation of BCCs. In rare instances, other factors like contact with arsenic, radiation exposure, and burn complications can trigger BCCs as well. They are rarely life threatening, but can cause disfigurement and muscle or nerve damage.

Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC) is the second most commonly occurring form of skin cancer. It develops in the skin’s upper layer squamous cells. Approximately 700,000 cases of SCC are diagnosed annually in the United States. Reportedly, between 3,900 and 8,000 cases had fatal results in 2012. In the last thirty years, SCC cases have increased by 200 percent. They generally resemble “scaly red patches, open sores, elevated growths with a central depression, or warts” that may crust or bleed. SCCs are most often caused by ultra violet (UV) exposure whether through daily long-term sun exposure, short intense sun exposure, or tanning beds. With a few exceptions, SCCs occur on parts of the body most often exposed to the sun. Although previously associated with men over 50, SCCs are steadily increasing in women under 30. This phenomenon is largely attributed to tanning beds.

Melanoma is the most dangerous form of skin cancer. Melanoma tumors “originate in the pigment-producing melanocytes in the basal layer of the epidermis.” They resemble moles, and can develop from moles as well. Most often, they are black or brown. The main source of melanomas is intense, sporadic UV exposure regularly leading to sunburn. There is also a significantly higher risk for those with a genetic predisposition toward skin cancer. Melanomas account for 9,710 deaths in the U.S. annually. There are 120,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Early detection is key as the disease is harder to cure when the cancer metastasizes to other parts of the body.

Statistics

Each year there are approximately five million Americans treated for skin cancer. There are more new cases of skin cancer than incidences of breast, lung, colon, and prostate cancer combined. One in five Americans will develop skin cancer in his or her lifetime. There is a 40-50 percent chance that an American who lives to the age of 65 will either develop a BCC or SCC. Approximately 90 percent of non-melanoma skin cancers are developed from UV radiation from the sun. And surprisingly, more people develop skin cancer through tanning than lung cancer through smoking.

One person dies of melanoma every 57 minutes and one in every 50 men and women will be diagnosed with it in his or her lifetime. Melanoma is one of three cancers with an increasing mortality rate (liver cancer and esophageal cancer). It is the most frequently occurring cancer in young adults (25-29) and the second most frequently occurring cancer in young people (15-29).

 What Causes Skin Cancer?

There are a variety of contributing risk factors for skin cancer. Unprotected overexposure to UV radiation from both the sun and tanning beds is the predominant source of skin cancer. This can come from extended daily exposure over the course of a lifetime or short intense spurts that result in sunburn. It is generally the latter that causes melanoma.

As of September 2, 2014, the FDA reclassified tanning beds from low-moderate risk to moderate-high risk devices. Indoor tanning is linked to more than 419,000 skin cancer cases a year in the U.S. A one-time indoor tanning session increases a person’s risk of developing squamous cell carcinoma by 67 percent and basal cell carcinoma by 29 percent. Two to three million teens use indoor tanning beds every year and subsequently increase their risk of melanoma by 75 percent.

Other risk factors include having pale and easily sunburned skin, genetics/family history, workplace exposure to coal tar, creosote, arsenic compound or radium, moles, and previous severe sunburns.

 Skin Cancer Clinical Trials

Through the successes of clinical trials, the FDA has approved seven new treatments for advanced metastatic melanoma cancer since 2011. The new treatment options include targeted therapies and immunotherapies. Targeted therapies “disrupt specific molecules that help cancer cells survive and grow.” Researchers are particularly excited about innovative immunotherapies that restore and enhance the immune system’s ability to fight cancer

National Cancer Institute’s Howard Streicher stated the difference for patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma just 5 years ago and today “is like night and day.”

Targeted Therapies

Targeted therapies disrupt the vital communication route of the signaling pathway in tumor cells known as the MAP kinase or MAPK pathway. The pathway influences “critical functions such as cell division and cell death.” Two proteins involved in the makeup of the MAPK pathway are the BRAF and the MEK. More than half of advanced melanomas have mutations in the BRAF gene. Two of the recently approved FDA drugs specifically target BRAF proteins: vemurafenib and dabrafenib. Each drug was approved after findings from phase III trials that tested patients with tumors that had one or two specific mutations in the BRAF gene. Trial results proved a longer overall survival rate without the disease worsening compared to the drug used as the standard of care at the time.

Immunotherapies

Melanoma is particularly predisposed to inducing an immune response. Researchers realized that tumors can divert T-Cells (particular proteins on the surface of immune cells) and other immune cells from attacking them by manipulating the immune system. The tumors essentially mask themselves from the T-Cells, while “dial[ing] back the immune response.”

One of the new drugs, Ipilimumab, “targets a checkpoint protein on T cells called CTLA-4” that releases the T-cells to attack tumors. This drug came into effect after a phase III trial that tested patients with cancer no longer reacting to FDA-approved and/or common therapies.

The other newly FDA-approved drugs for both targeted and immunotherapies saw similarly encouraging results. Testing is still in a fairly new territory and final results await to be seen. Future inquiries include: what combination of drugs would be most effective and which patients necessitate which specific drugs? Researchers are also looking to further limit side effects. Although most side effects were minor, some included severe skin rashes, diarrhea, colitis, and fatal lung inflammation.

 Law and Policy Regarding Skin Cancer

For starters, the Surgeon General’s office published its most recent Call to Action in 2014 on preventing skin cancer. A Call to Action is a “science-based document to stimulate action nationwide to solve a major public health problem.” The aim of this specific document is to increase skin cancer awareness and to call on various organizations and sectors in the U.S. to become invested in skin cancer prevention. The Call to Action presents a five step plan: promote sun protection in outdoor settings, inform the public about UV exposure, promote policies that advocate skin cancer prevention, minimize side effects from indoor tanning, and “strengthen research, surveillance, monitoring, and evaluation related to skin cancer prevention.” It also emphasizes skin cancer as a major threat toward American youth. It calls for coordination and support from federal, state, and local sectors of the business, health, and educational communities.

In accordance with the Surgeon General’s emphasis on American youth skin cancer prevention, many states have banned indoor tanning for minors. Currently, these states include California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Texas and Vermont. In addition, 42 states regulate indoor tanning by minors in varying ways. For example, Alabama bans indoor tanning for minors below the age of 15. Counties and cities across the country have regulated the activity as well. Howard County, Maryland was the first county to ban indoor tanning for minors under 18.

California has some specific laws that deal with UV safety prevention. Billy’s Bill for Sun Safety requires schools to allow students to wear protective sun gear outside and wear sunscreen without a physician’s note or prescription during the school day. The California Labor Code also allows lifeguards who develop skin cancer while working with a public agency or the California Department of Parks and Recreation to be eligible for workers’ compensation. Lastly, minors under 14 are prohibited from indoor tanning and children between the ages of 14-18 must have a parent or guardian’s written permission.

In New York, aside from regulations for minors, tanners 18 and over must sign a statement acknowledging the dangers of indoor tanning before stepping into the tanning booth. Staff at tanning salons are required to wear protective gear as well. The state also requires sun-safety education and necessary equipment for state employees that spend five or more hours in the sun daily.

Altogether, it seems more and more states are getting on board regarding UV preventative regulation and informing the public.

 Conclusion

Skin cancer is definitely a major health concern in the United States. New clinical research and national legislation are at the forefront of the fight. On the public end, we need to stay informed, help educate others, and take simple preventative measures. By implementing everyday habits we can best fight skin cancer, such as regularly applying sunscreen and wearing proper attire. Moreover, as a society, we need to stop perpetuating the trend that tanned skin in more attractive. But in all, the strides fighting skin cancer look extremely promising and the efforts don’t show any signs of slowing down.

Resources

Primary

The Surgeon General: Call to Action to Prevent Skin Cancer

Additional

Skin Cancer Foundation: Skin Cancer Facts

American Cancer Society: Skin Cancer Facts

NCSL: Indoor Tanning Restrictions for Minors

NYSCOPBA: Sun Safety

Skin Cancer Foundation: Basal Cell Carcinoma

Skin Cancer Foundation: Melanoma

Skin Cancer Foundation: New York Tightens Tanning Laws for Teens

Skin Cancer Foundation: Skin Cancer Information

Skin Cancer Foundation: Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Skin Cancer: Clinical Trials, Current Policies, and Certain Progress appeared first on Law Street.

Americans must abide by governing laws at a variety of levels throughout the country. Aside from the U.S. Constitution, each state has its own constitution further detailing the everyday relations between the state government and the people. But what about international law? Can we be affected as individuals by agreements the United States has entered into with foreign countries? Although it may seem a little far fetched, these questions have come up time and again in our court system. You may be surprised by how international law can affect you.

International Law in America

Overview

Two sources primarily make up international law: international agreements and customary practice. In adherence to U.S. law, international agreements can be established by entering into a treaty or an executive agreement. The executive branch has authority over treaties and executive agreements, but treaties need the consent of Congress as well. While Congress may be part of a joint agreement between the executive branch and Congress, that is not necessary; the president is only required to notify Congress of an upcoming executive order. Treaties and executive agreements may or may not be self-executing. Non-self-executing treaties and executive agreements do not immediately establish U.S. law, but evoke a promise to enact domestic legislation in order to enforce them in a timely fashion.

The strength of international law within the U.S. court system depends on a variety of circumstances. Self-executing treaties and executive treaties are generally considered to have equal status to federal law, superior status to state law, and inferior status to the Constitution. Generally speaking, non-self-executing agreements have limited strength. The question still remains whether implemented legislation required from these agreements can be reviewed for validity by the Supreme Court.

The second source of international law is customary international practice. Customary international law is essentially general practice–for example genocide has been forbidden by common practice even before it was codified. It is generally understood that U.S. statutes that conflict with customary international practice will reign supreme, although that phenomenon is relatively rare.

What is the Treaty Power?

The Constitution designates that the President has the authority to sign treaties “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” and a 2/3 vote in the Senate. The treaty power maintains our system of checks and balances and makes passing a treaty a relatively hard process. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution calls treaties “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

The U.S. is governed by both federal and state authority, and jurisdiction is established by the Constitution. The 10th Amendment reserves all power to the states when not specifically delegated otherwise or specifically prohibited in the Constitution. So federal authority can ratify a treaty. But what happens when the laws meant to implement the treaty overstep into state jurisdiction? Technically, that could be increasing Congress’ powers. These kinds of inconsistencies make the integration of international law even more of a gray area.

What is the Necessary and Proper Clause?

The clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, under Article 1 of the Constitution empowers Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” The Necessary and Proper Clause grants the federal government power to govern outside its set natural jurisdiction when required to enforce federal laws. This clause is specifically used to justify implemented legislation in enforcing international treaties and executive agreement.

Here is a quick video explaining the clause with regard to the 10th Amendment.

These are, of course, not the only aspects of American law that affect the application of international law, but they are the ones that are most often discussed and considered when attempting to determine the scope of that application.

Case Study: Bond v. United States

In some ways, this case is more apt for a soap opera than the U.S. Supreme Court, but very important legal questions were hidden under the dramatics. In this case, international policy implicitly affected a single person. An individual right, specifically the 10th Amendment, was called into question. In an even rarer scenario, the case was brought before the Supreme Court twice. The first question posed to the Supreme Court was whether we can challenge international laws (treaties) as individuals using our individual rights and the 10th Amendment? The second, can the Supreme Court deem unconstitutional implemented legislation brought on by international law?

Summary of the Initial Case

In Lansdale, Pennsylvania, Carol Bond discovered that her friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was pregnant from an affair with her husband, Clifford Bond. In a flare of passion, she vowed revenge. Bond is a trained microbiologist, and at the time worked for the chemical manufacturer Rohm and Haas. She took advantage of her connection to steal 10-chloro-10H-phenoxarsine from Rohm and Haas and ordered potassium dichromate over Amazon. The chemicals can be poisonous with minimal topical contact. Over the course of at least 24 attempts, Bond spread the chemicals on Haynes’ house and car door handles and mailbox. Fortunately, Haynes was often able to spot the chemicals from noticeable color distortions and only suffered from a mild hand burn that was cleaned with water.

After several attempts to contact local police to no avail, Haynes brought the matter to federal officers of the Postal Service. At the culmination of the investigation, Bond was ultimately charged with two counts of possessing and using a chemical weapon in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code and section 229 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 and two counts of mail theft. Bond pleaded guilty and had the right to appeal. She was sentenced to six years in federal prison.

What is the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998?

The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (CWCIA) of 1998 implements the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) into U.S. federal legislation. Section 229 is the penalty provision.

Read More: The Forgotten Chemical WMDs: Chemical Weapons

The United States signed the CWC on January 13, 1993 and initiated it in April 1997. The international convention currently has 190 state parties. The CWC prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. The National Implementation Measures clause prohibits “natural and legal persons anywhere on its territory … from undertaking any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.” Section 229 of the CWCIA specifically decrees it “unlawful for any person knowingly to develop, produce, otherwise acquire….retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon.”

The CWC was signed with specific intentions aimed at international peace. It is a ceasefire for all countries involved in the manufacture or possession of chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction, as means of combat to ensure global safety. The treaty is non-self-executing, meaning the CWC itself didn’t establish any U.S. laws, but evoked a promise from the U.S. to enact future legislation in accordance to the treaty.

First Supreme Court Case

The first question at hand: Does Bond have standing to challenge the federal chemical weapons charges filed against her under the CWCIA claiming her 10th Amendment rights? The answer ended up being yes. The court found that a federally indicted criminal defendant has the right to challenge the statue raising the question of federalism and states’ rights under the 10th Amendment.

The following video recaps the initial case summary and further details the defense’s arguments.

The court also questioned whether the CWCIA is valid under the “necessary and proper” clause to enforce the Treaty Power. The Supreme Court opted out of making that decision and remanded the case to the Third Circuit.

Third Circuit Case

The Third Circuit stated the validity of a treaty was “beyond [its] ken.” The creation of treaties is outside the courts’ powers; they are created by the President and Senate. The court ruled that for a valid treaty, implementing legislation need only to be “rationally related.”

The Third Circuit used the 1920 case Missouri v. Holland as precedent. That case concerned the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, a treaty established with Great Britain. The regulation of the hunting of migratory birds was previously deemed as a state concern, outside of Congress’ jurisdiction. The former case declared “the premise that principles of federalism will ordinarily impose no limitation on Congress’ ability to write laws supporting treaties” is implicit under the “necessary and proper” clause.

This decision raised natural concerns. Onlookers worried that if the court refused to decide on the validity of treaties, then anything goes. The President and Senate could ultimately ratify a treaty that required implementing laws that would otherwise be gravely illegal. Congress could theoretically grant itself powers it previously lacked through the Treaty Power.

This video features Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, a Law Professor at Georgetown University and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, further discussing the merits of the Treaty Power with regard to the case. Rosenkranz advocates limited power of the Treaty Power and enforcement of domestic law.

Second Supreme Court Case

The case was brought back to the Supreme Court to further test the scope of the treaty power. The case had an opportunity to create a landmark decision but fell short. The majority response failed to make a decision in that regard. It did side with the defense, however, claiming that Bond’s actions didn’t fall within the CWCIA in the first place.

The Court emphasized the importance of Congress’ intent when implementing federal laws with regard to treaties. The CWCIA was not intended to punish local criminal activity, which has generally been a state concern. The Court also considered the definition of a chemical weapon, and decided Bond’s chemical choices did not fit. Justice Roberts explained, “In sum, the global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard, or to treat a local assault with a chemi­cal irritant as the deployment of a chemical weapon.” Although Bond’s actions didn’t fall under the CWCIA, the decision casted “serious doubts about whether the treaty power can reach local crimes.”

The Court unanimously decided  in favor of Bond, although Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas wrote separate concurring opinions. They did not agree with the majority opinion that Bond’s actions didn’t fall under the CWCIA. They believed the CWCIA expressly prohibited “toxic substances” outside of “peaceful purposes.” The three justices sided with Bond in belief that the CWCIA is unconstitutional and goes outside of Congress’ enumerated powers. Treaties should only concern “matters of international intercourse,” not “matters of purely domestic regulation.”

So although the majority avoided the issues of the Treaty Power, Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas faced it right on. While the gray areas of international law and national application still exist, this at least hints to the fact that the Supreme Court may not hold American citizens to international laws that infringe on their rights in the future.

Conclusion

Can Americans be held to International Laws? It seems so. What if they intrude on individual and states’ rights?  The first Bond v. U.S. decision decreed we have the legal right to raise objections. The Supreme Court decision ensures our right as individuals to check the federal government when entering international agreements. It is important that the balance between state and federal government power stays in check. Even if the President and Senate can legally ratify international treaties, it doesn’t mean they should if they “violate traditional American rights, including the individual rights of federalism and the separation of powers.” American law, as always, reigns triumphant in the U.S.

Reources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: International Laws and Agreements

Justia: Bond v. United States

U.S. Chemical Weapons Convention: National Implementation Measures

Additional

Cornell University Law School: 18 U.S. Code & 229

Heritage Guide: Necessary and Proper Clause

Heritage Guide: Treaty Clause

Legal Information Institute: CRS Annotated Constitution

Atlantic: Bond v. U.S. Doesn’t Mean Latvian Cops Are Coming For Your Guns

The Heritage Foundation: Bond v. United States

Slate: Chemical Reaction

Washington Post: Thoughts on Bond v United States

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Are Your Individual Rights When it Comes to International Law? appeared first on Law Street.

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) are staples of American society that have each been around for more than 100 years. Although they are separate organizations, as each has its own congressional charter and upholds its own membership rules, they both promote leadership and civic duty. It is inarguable that the two organizations instill many important values in their young troops; however, they have had radically different approaches to modernization, particularly when it comes to LGBT acceptance. While the Girl Scouts accept girls and women of all different backgrounds, the Boy Scouts still discriminate against gay adult leadership. Read on to learn how and why the BSA and GSUSA have gone down such divergent paths.

 Who are the Boy Scouts of America?

The BSA was established in 1910 and it has four fundamental groups: Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Varsity Scouting, and Venturing. There are more than 2.6 million youth members and over one million volunteers involved in BSA. Boy Scouts aim to earn merit badges, awards given by demonstrating mastery of a skill or field of study, including camping, citizenship in the community, and first aid.

• Mission Statement: “The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law.”
• Scout Oath: “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”
• Scout Law: “A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

BSA Stance on Homosexuality

The BSA affirmed its position against admitting gay scouts and leadership in 1991. The release included the following statement:

We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts. Because of these beliefs, the Boy Scouts of America does.

In 2007, the BSA confirmed, “we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals,” although the organization claimed to not actively seek out a person’s sexual orientation.

Opposition to Those Policies

In 2012, Merck & Co pulled funding because of the BSA discrimination policy. The prior year, Merck had donated $30,000 to BSA. Other companies that followed suit included Intel, UPS, Ernst & Young, IBM, Levi Strauss & Co., J.P. Morgan, American Airlines, Medtronic, Portland General Gas and Electric, Hewlett Packard, Textron, Fleet Bank, CVS/Pharmacy Stores, and Carrier Corp.

Even President Obama advocated for the BSA to lift the ban.

In house, the BSA sent a survey to one million of its members regarding their position on gay members. The results said “overwhelming majorities of parents, teens and members of the Scouting community felt it would be unacceptable to deny an openly gay Scout an Eagle Scout Award solely because of his sexual orientation.”

Policy Change

At a meeting in Grapevine, Texas in 2013, the BSA voted 61-38 to overturn the standing rule regarding BSA youth. The ruling officially came into effect January 1, 2014 stating “no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.” However, the ban was not lifted for scout volunteers and leaders over the age of 18. Lifting the ban for leadership was never under consideration.

Backlash From Both Sides

The ban lift resulted in a wave of criticism from both ends of the spectrum. In an interview with ABC, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention executive committee, Frank Page, stated, “I think I can say with pretty strong accuracy that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are very disappointed in the latest change in policy…deeply disappointed.”

The Southeast Christian Church, located in Louisville, Kentucky, publicized a move to sever ties with the Boy Scouts, forcing the BSA to lose approximately 300 families. The Assemblies of God, the world’s largest Pentecostal group, also withdrew support.

On the other hand, according to Rich Ferraro, a spokesman for the gay-rights watchdog group GLAAD, “Until every parent and young person have the same opportunity to serve, the Boy Scouts will continue to see a decline in both membership and donations.”

In accordance, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the rule “incoherent,” claiming, “The proposal says, in essence, that homosexuality is morally acceptable until a boy turns 18 – then, when he comes of age, he’s removed from the Scouts.” He claims that it sends a message that gay adults are somehow inadequate to lead and mentor troops.

Disney also announced it would pull all funding from the BSA starting in 2015 because of the ban on gay leadership.

How is BSA not breaking anti-discrimination laws?

As a private, religious organization, the BSA is shielded from federal and state discrimination laws based on the freedoms of speech and association. They can legally exclude atheists, agnostics, and people in the LGBT community.

The American Civil Liberties Union is one organization that has ceaselessly attacked the BSA for this policy. For example, it was present in the 2000 Supreme Court case of The Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale. Dale, a former Assistant Scout Master, was kicked out of the BSA for his sexuality. In New Jersey, there is a law preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Dale’s favor, but the opinion was overturned a year later by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated in the majority opinion:

The Boy Scouts’ right to express their views against lesbians and gay men would be hampered if the organization was forced to admit openly gay people as leaders…lesbians and gay people, if they are honest about their sexual orientation, make a statement in their very existence, and groups like the Boy Scouts therefore have a right to exclude them.”

The ACLU called it a “damaging but limited” defeat as the “ruling is limited to groups that exist for the purpose of expressing views and ideas.” So, any nondiscriminatory progress the BSA has made or will make in the future will be made from within. Legally, its hand cannot be forced.

Leaders Kicked Out

Jennifer Tyrrell was a former den mother of her son’s Cub Scout chapter. In April 2012, she was told she could no longer hold her position due to sexual orientation. She had served in the position for over a year. When she was kicked out, she started her advocacy against the BSA to end its discrimination of the LGBT community and launched a petition, stating, “the Boy Scouts are once again forcing me to look my children in the eyes and tell them that our family isn’t good enough.”

In the following video, Tyrell talks about the BSA’s policy change and her petition.

Geoff McGrath, a former Scout leader from Seattle, Washington, is often considered one of the first leaders removed after the policy change. BSA stated they did not know about his sexual orientation when his chapter was approved, although McGrath reported that he never hid his gay identity or support of gay rights. In an interview with NBC News he stated, “They are complaining that the problem is a distraction to Scouting and they don’t seem to understand that the distraction is self-inflicted.” McGrath’s brother and nephew rode their bikes from the Northwest to Boy Scout headquarters in Texas in order to raise awareness of the policy.

Who are The Girl Scouts of the USA?

Juliette Gordon Low founded the Girl Scouts in Savannah, Georgia in March 1912. Currently, there are approximately 2.8 million Girl Scouts and volunteers affiliated with the organization. GSUSA aims to encourage healthy living opportunities, promote economic opportunities, foster global citizenship and a global voice, and support a strong nonprofit community and girl scout experience for girls. A core value and key component in GSUSA is diversity. It strives to reach girls from all different backgrounds.

GSUSA’s Position on Sexual Orientation

A GSUA document entitled Girl Scouts Beyond Bars, explains its policy.

Regarding sexual orientation, Girl Scouts of the USA holds fast to a commitment to embrace diversity and has in place a policy that prohibits discriminatory treatment of any kind, including on the basis of sexual orientation. This policy which applied to interactions with girls and adults, must be honored by every person working in the Girl Scout movement. Keep in mind that it is not appropriate to ask or assume what a girl’s sexual orientation is.

How has GSUSA supported the LGBT community?

GSUSA’s inclusion policy allows transgender children to be Girl Scouts. Girl Scouts of Colorado stated, “We accept all girls in kindergarten through 12th grade as members. If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.”

In 2007, GSUSA honored 18-year-old Girl Scout Madeline as a National Young Woman of Distinction for her project promoting awareness to the intolerance shown to the LGBT community. This is the highest award given by GSUSA.

GSUSA has featured additional resources on its website for Girl Scouts to research, such as the Global Fund for Women and Tolerance.org. Each of these sites provides information and supports LGBT initiatives.

At a 2011 Convention, GSUSA held a seminar called “Moving Beyond Diversity to Inclusion,” which discussed some LGBT issues. At this same convention, GSUSA honored Annise Parker, Houston’s first openly gay mayor, as a guest speaker.

LGBT Activists/Leaders of GSUSA

Unlike the BSA, GSUSA welcomes leaders who are members of the LGBT community. Debra Nakatomi, GSUSA Board Member, is an LGBT activist who provides training in advancing LGBT rights. Lynn Cothren, former GSUSA Director of Administration from 2005-12, is a gay-rights advocate, speaker, and former board member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Timothy Higdon, former GSUSA Chief of External Affairs from 2010-12, is an LGBT activist, employee of Amnesty International, and a leader in the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Conclusion

Whether the BSA’s lifted ban on gay membership will ultimately extend to adults is up in the air. Hopefully, its first step toward tolerance will not be its last as there are more hurdles to overcome. There are ramifications for the BSA only lifting its ban on youth members, as many worry that the message sent is that gay leaders are somehow inadequate. The policy also tells Scout youth that being an openly gay adult is unacceptable. Critics of the policy are concerned that a gay scout who has upheld the Boy Scout code during his entire career is stripped of his titles when he reaches 18, and condemn the policy as unfair. However, many see  the Girl Scouts of the USA as trailblazers who exemplify the civil freedoms America represents. Two similar organizations have ended up on significantly different paths–while modernization is always a slow process, it seems as though GSUSA will end up on the right side of history.

Resources

Primary

Boy Scouts of America: About the BSA

Boy Scouts of America: Current Policy

Girl Scouts: Who We Are

Girl Scouts: America’s Top Girl Scouts Named 2007 National Young Women of Distinction

Additional

100 Question for Girl Scouts: The Girl Scouts and the LGBT Agenda

ABCNews: Some Churches Say They’ll Cut Ties to Boy Scouts Following Its Lifting Ban on Gay Scouts

ACLU: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling That Boy Scouts Can Discriminate is Damaging but Limited

CNN: Disney to Pull Boy Scouts Funding by 2015 Over Policy Banning Gay Leaders

DiversityInc: Merck Condemns Boy Scout Gay Ban, Halts Funding

FoxNews: Transgender Girl Scout Controversy Sheds Light on Organization’s ‘Inclusive’ Policies

GLAAD: Boy Scouts of America: Reinstate Cub Scout Leader Who Was Removed For Being Gay

Huffington Post: Geoff McGrath, Gay Boy Scout Troop Leader, Allegedly Kicked Out of Organization

Scout and Pride: BSA and Homosexuality

WNDMoney: Look Which Companies Dumping Boy Scouts

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts Take Different Paths to LGBT Inclusion appeared first on Law Street.

Since his first presidential campaign, President Obama has advocated for immigration reform, and his administration has experienced its share of successes and failures. Notably, it failed to accomplish its goal to see through the passage of the Dream Act, legislation that would allow unauthorized immigrant students without a criminal background to apply for temporary legal status and eventually earn U.S. citizenship if they attended college or enlisted in the U.S. military. Immigration reform seemed to truly pick up steam, however, during Obama’s second term. In 2013, he proposed earned citizenship for unauthorized immigrants. But what exactly is earned citizenship?

Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.

An undocumented immigrant is a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, often by crossing the border to avoid inspection, or someone who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson. According to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics, 11.4 million undocumented immigrants lived in the United States as of 2012. The combined number of undocumented immigrants living in California, Texas, New York, and Florida accounted for 55 percent of that figure.

More than eight million, or 71 percent of all undocumented immigrants, were from Central American countries in 2008-12. Asia accounted for 13 percent; South America for seven percent; Europe, Canada, and Oceania for four percent; Africa for three percent; and the Caribbean for two percent. The top five countries of birth included: Mexico (58 percent), Guatemala (six percent), El Salvador (three percent), Honduras (two percent), and China (two percent).

In the U.S., 61 percent of unauthorized immigrants are between the ages 25-44 and 53 percent are male. Interestingly, 57 percent of unauthorized immigrants over the age of 45 are female.

What is Obama’s Earned Citizenship Proposal?

In 2013, Obama called for earned citizenship in an attempt to fix what he calls a broken system. It is an alternative to deporting the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S illegally that allows a legal path for them to earn citizenship. In this proposal, unauthorized immigrants must submit to national security and criminal background checks, pay taxes and a penalty, wait a specific amount of time, and learn English in order to earn citizenship. If the eligibility requirements are met, citizenship is guaranteed. Lastly, young immigrants would be able to fast track citizenship through military service or higher education pursuit.

Provisional Legal Status

Unauthorized immigrants must first register, submit biometric data, pass both national security and background checks, and pay penalties/fees in order to be eligible for provisional legal status. Before applying for legal permanent status–a green card–and eventually U.S. citizenship, they must wait until current legal immigration backlogs are cleared. A provisional legal status will not allow federal benefits. Lawful permanent resident status eligibility will require stricter requirements than the provisional legal status, and applicants must pay their taxes, pass further background and national security tests, register for Selective Service if applicable, pay additional fees and penalties, and learn English and U.S. Civics. In accordance with today’s law, applicants must wait five years after receiving a green card to apply for U.S. citizenship.

DREAMers and AgJOBS

This proposal includes the voted-down Dream Act. Innocent unauthorized immigrant children brought to the U.S. by their parents can earn expedited citizenship through higher education or military service. Agricultural workers can fast track legal provisional status as well in a program called AgJOBS. This a measure to specifically fight against employers taking advantage of unauthorized farmers who will work for the bare minimum.

Combatting Fraud

The proposal allocates funding to DHS, the Department of State, and other relevant federal agencies to create fraud prevention programs that will “provide training for adjudicators, allow regular audits of applications to identify patterns of fraud and abuse, and incorporate other proven fraud prevention measures.” These programs will help ensure a fair and honest path to earned citizenship.

2013 Immigration Reform Bill

Much of Obama’s proposal for earned citizenship came to life in the Senate’s 2013 Immigration Reform Bill. “Nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me,” the President said, “but the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform.” The bill was a heavily bipartisan effort, written by a group of four Republicans and four Democrats called the Gang of Eight. The bill would have provided $46.3 million in funding for its implementation. Immigrants could start applying for a lawful permanent residence when specific goals and timelines of the bill are reached.

Border Security

The bill mandated a variety of border security measures, including the following: the training and addition of 19,200 full-time border agents amassing to 38,405 in total; activation of an electronic exit system at every Customs and Border Control outlet; constructions of 700 miles of fencing; increased surveillance 24 hours a day on the border region; and some specific technology measures including ground sensors, fiber-optic tank inspection scopes, portable contraband detectors, and radiation isotope identification devices. The bill also mandated more unauthorized immigration prosecution, including the hiring of additional prosecutors, judges, and relevant staff. Interior Enforcement would be required to increase its efforts against visa overstay, including a pilot program to notify people of an upcoming visa expiration. And finally, a bipartisan Southern Border Security Commission to make recommendations and allocating funds when appropriate.

Immigrant Visas

Registered Provisional Immigrants’ (RPI) status would be granted on a six-year basis. Unauthorized immigrants would be eligible for application if they have been in the U.S. since December 31, 2011, paid their appropriate taxes as well as a $1,000 penalty. Applicants would need a relatively clean criminal background, although the bill allowed judges more leniency in determining the severity of a person’s criminal background. After ten years of living in the U.S. with continuous employment (or proof of living above the poverty line), the payment of additional fees, and additional background checks, those with RPI status could apply for legal permanent residence. Naturalized citizenship could be applied for after three years of legal permanent residence.

Between 120,000 and 250,000 visas would be handed out each year based on a two-tier point system. Tier one visas would be designated for higher-skilled immigrants with advanced educational credentials and experience, and tier two visas would be reserved for less-skilled immigrants. The top 50 percent that accrued the most points in each tier would be granted visas, and points would be based on a combination of factors including: education, employment, occupation, civic involvement, English language proficiency, family ties, age, and nationality.

Interior Enforcement

Essentially, this provision mandated the use of E-verify, which is “an internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States by comparing information from an employee’s Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 to data from U.S. government records.” E-verify, in use now on a limited basis, would be mandated for all employers in the time span of five years. Employers would be required to register newly hired employees with E-verify within three days, and regular assessments would take place to ensure that E-verify isn’t used for discriminatory purposes.

Watch the video below for more information on the Immigration Reform Bill.

Stopped in the House

The Senate passed the bill with overwhelming support in a 68-32 vote. Both sides were highly pleased with the bipartisan teamwork the bill produced. “The strong bipartisan vote we took is going to send a message across the country,” said Sen. Chuck Shumer (D-NY). “It’s going to send a message to the other end of the Capitol as well.” When the bill was finalized, the group broke into a “Yes, we can!” chant.

Devastatingly, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) refused to even allow the bill to come to a vote after previously claiming that something needed to be done about immigration reform. He said:

The idea that we’re going to take up a 1,300-page bill that no one had ever read, which is what the Senate did, is not going to happen in the House. And frankly, I’ll make clear that we have no intention of ever going to conference on the Senate bill.

No room was allowed for comprise or debate on potential house legislation.

Obama’s Immigration Accountability Executive Actions

President Obama’s immigration reform executive actions, announced in November 2014, focus on three items: cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, deporting felons instead of families, and accountability. Basically, these encompass a minor segment of the immigration reform he was trying to pass all along. People attempting to cross the border illegally will have a greater chance of failure. Border security command-and-control will be centralized. Deportation will focus on those who threaten security and national safety. Temporary legal status will be issued in three-year increments for unauthorized immigrants who register, pass background checks, and pay appropriate taxes. It will protect up to five million unauthorized immigrants from deportation.

The executive actions established Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). While DACA protects immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, DAPA provides temporary relief from deportation for eligible parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

 Are the Executive Actions legal?

These executive actions saw immediate backlash. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) responded, “The president’s decision to recklessly forge ahead with a plan to unilaterally change our immigration laws ignores the will of the American people and flouts the Constitution.” Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) moved for the House to sue the president.

On Feburary 16, 2015, conservative Texas district court judge Andrew Hanen ruled in favor of Texas and 25 other states to overturn Obama’s action as unconstitutional. Hanen  ruled that the executive actions would cause these states “irreparable harm.”

The matter will now be appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Obama’s actions are blocked indefinitely. Until then, a number of states including New York, California, and New Mexico, have asked for a lift of the ban for their states. They await a ruling.

 Conclusion

Immigration has been the center of heated debate for years. The closest our government came to finally passing a bill that would aid the problem of illegal immigration didn’t even come to a vote in the House. So President Obama decided to take the matter into his own hands. Whether forcing states to participate in his immigration reform is constitutional or not will be a decision left to the courts. Obama’s proposal for earned citizenship started a snowball effect of immigration policy that will likely end in a showdown at the Supreme Court.

Resources

Primary

White House: Earned Citizenship

White House: Immigration

Additional

Immigration Policy Center: A Guide to S.744

Immigration Policy Center: The Dream Act

Politico: Immigration Reform Bill 2013: Senate Passes Legislation 68-32

U.S. News & World Report: Is Obama’s Immigration Executive Order Legal?

Washington Post: Boehner Closes Door on House-Senate Immigration Panel

Washington Post: A Dozen States Will CAll for Courts to Allow Obama’s Executive Actions to Proceed

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Immigration Reform: Earned Citizenship and Beyond appeared first on Law Street.

Common Core State Standards have been a matter of controversy for a few years now, garnering opposition from both sides of the aisle. Common Core in some ways saw its inception in the George W. Bush era and serves as a predecessor to the No Child Left Behind Act. But what exactly is Common Core, why was it launched, and what is the opposition? Read on to find out.

What is Common Core?

The Common Core State Standards “aim to raise student achievement by standardizing what’s taught in schools across the United States.” They include a particular focus on language arts and mathematics. The objective is to universally prepare students from Kindergarten to high school to be successful for entry-level college courses or to enter the workforce. It lays out what students should know and be able to do by the end of each specific grade. The standards are results driven, but the methods used to achieve the set results are chosen by local teachers and facilities.

The History Behind Common Core

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was first signed into law by President Bush in January 2002. The next decade was spent revising the law’s requirements and attempting to create more successful “adequate yearly progress” reports. However, people quickly realized that NCLB was in need of serious reform itself. In November 2007, state chiefs first brainstormed Common Core standards at the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Annual Policy Forum. The following year, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA), CCSSO, and education nonprofit Achieve released Benchingmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education. In it they recommended the common standards. In April 2009, the NGA and CCSSO officially invited states to commit to the Common Core standards, and by June 49 states and territories announced commitments. After public feedback, a final draft was released in June 2010.

The NGA and CCSSO  led the development of the standards and actively advocated for their implementation. They also sought input from teachers, parents, school administrators, and various state leaders in “how the standards are taught, the curriculum developed, and the materials used to support teachers.” Implementation, however, is completely up to the states. Once a state adopts the Common Core standards, it is delegated to local teachers, principals, and superintendents to introduce the standards into school curriculum.

 Why was the Common Core program started?

It has long been a bipartisan view that the U.S. needs education reform. Common Core was started to allow high school graduates to be competitive in college, but also in “the rapidly changing American job market and the high tech, information-based global economy.” It is widely believed that U.S. students are falling behind their counterparts in other countries. Standardized tests in countries like China and Singapore have advanced well beyond the U.S. over the last few decades. Bill Gates, a heavy investor in the Common Core, advocated,

Our nation is one step closer to supporting effective teaching in every classroom, charting a path to college and careers for all students, and developing the tools to help all children stay motivated and engaged in their own education. The more states that adopt these college and career based standards, the closer we will be to sharing innovation across state borders and becoming more competitive as a country.

In Gate’s interview, he repeatedly noted that the standards are not based on curriculum. They are “solely” milestones for where the students should be at each grade level.

How much does Common Core cost?

The cost for implementing Common Core will vary from state to state, but will undoubtedly be expensive. Training teachers and buying new materials will take a substantial amount of money. In 2011, California estimated that replacing its current standardized tests with Common Core standards would cost taxpayers approximately $1.6 billion. In Texas, the estimate is upward of $3 billion dollars.

According to the Common Core Initiative however, the implementation will allow for states to eventually save on resources, materials, and “cross-state opportunities that come from sharing consistent standards.” The cost-benefit ratio should end favorably. As of 2014, 43 states, Washington D.C., Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands adopted the Common Core.

What are some characteristics of Common Core?

English and Language Arts

Generally, the standards call for “regular practice with complex texts and their academic language.” They demand a steady increase in complexity and progressive reading comprehension. There is to be an emphasis on academic vocabulary, focusing on meaning, nuances, and range. There isn’t a required reading list; however, categories of literature are required. Examples include classic myths, foundational U.S. documents, works of Shakespeare, and staples of American literature.

Students should know how to provide evidence from the text when forming analyses and arguments at different levels. The standards call for text-dependent questions on assessments as opposed to questions based on student experiences and/or opinions. The objective is for students to be able to effectively inform and persuade, and for these skills to become stronger as students move up in grade levels.

There is also a larger focus on nonfiction. For grades K-5, there is a 50/50 ratio between informational (history, social sciences, etc.) and literary texts. In grades six through 12 there is substantially increased attention to literary nonfiction.

Mathematics             

In mathematics, the standards call for a “greater focus on fewer topics.” The standards aim to narrow and deepen lessons on concepts, skills, and problemsolving depending on grade level. For example, K-2 will focus on addition and subtraction, while grades three through five will focus on multiplication and division of whole numbers and fractions.

There is an overriding theme across grades of linking topics and thinking. A standard at any grade level is designed to build upon the standard of the previous grade and act as an extension. This consistently reinforces major topics, which are used to support grade-level word problems that need mathematical applications to solve.

Finally, the mathematics standards aim to pursue conceptual understanding, procedural skills and fluency, and application with equal force. The idea is to deepen the understanding of concepts as opposed to memorizing rules. If the building blocks of complex math concepts are completely understood by students, that will eliminate degrees of future difficulty. Speed and accuracy are both to held in high importance.

What are the arguments against Common Core?

The goals of the Common Core seem to have U.S. students’ best interests at heart. So why is there so much opposition? Here’s a look at some of main challenges.

National Standards

First, some argue that the name “Common Core State Standards” is misleading. Since they have been adopted by 43 states, they are truly national standards. Detractors worry that states didn’t necessarily adopt the Common Core by choice, but were strong-armed by conditions ascribed by federal Race to the Top grants and the No Child Left Behind programs. Prior to the implementation of Common Core, all 50 states–whether on board or not–adopted NCLB or revised standards under the threat of losing federal funding.

More of the Same

Many see the Common Core as round two of No Child Left Behind. NCLB failed in both “raising academic performance and narrowing gaps in opportunity and outcomes.” This propagated the notion that American schools need to be fixed. Test results from NCLB did not meet expectations. After the first ten years, more than 50 percent of the nation’s schools were categorized as failing. Many of these same schools never received the support or resources necessary to stand a chance. In the same respect, will all schools be supplied with the needed computers required to take the Common Core tests?

Too Curriculum Based 

There are also worries that Common Core has become more curriculum based than originally intended. In the video below, a seven-year public school teacher discusses why the Common Core is not good for kids and dictates curriculum. She argues, “when the standards are tested that’s what you are going to spend your time on…[there is] no room to teach anything else.”  Her job security is based on meeting the standards. As a result, she’s concerned that the standards must be taught 100 percent of the time, and don’t allow flexibility or creativity.

She continues to argue that the material is not condensed, using the 93 elements of the third grade reading standard as an example. Her largest problem with Common Core is its age appropriateness. Although she advocates pushing students, she doesn’t believe seven year olds should be expected to master the difference between an adjective and an adverb. She labels the standards as a  “race to the middle” with “mediocre teaching.” Using a uniform approach, the faster learners are bored, while the slower learners are under immense pressure.

There is plenty of concern on the length and difficulty of the assessments as well. In the first round of distribution of the Common Core tests in New York, students, parents, and teachers strongly voiced their concerns. Many students felt immense pressure and were scared of failing, and teachers complained about the atmosphere the tests created.

Opting Out

Some children have started to opt out of the tests, often with parental support. The “opt out movement” has grown in popularity–thousands of students nationwide have chosen this route. Opt-outs protest the Common Core standards and the overemphasis on testing in public schools. There is even a National United Opt Out group comprised of parents, educators, students, and social activists. The legality of opting out seems to be a gray area, varying from state to state. In an extreme case, the Illinois State Board of Education sent a letter stating students opting out would be breaking the law and teachers refusing to administer the test would face legal consequences.

There are a variety of other arguments as well. One other concern is that corporate businesses are behind the standards to create a marketplace for Common Core resources. Others argue that electives like music and art will be sidelined. Finally, many teachers and parents don’t approve of the “one-size fits all” approach to teaching children.

Conclusion

It’s hard to say what is in store for U.S. education reform. We do need a change, but is Common Core the right one? There aren’t any studies regarding Common Core’s success to fall back on. Only time will tell. There are convincing arguments on both sides. Ultimately, everyone involved wants the same thing: U.S. students to be as educated and prepared for the world as possible.

Resources

Primary

Common Core State Standards Initiative: About the Standards

CCSSO: National Governors Association and State Education Chiefs Launch Common State Academic Standards

U.S. Department of Education: No Child Left Behind

Additional

Washington Post: The Common Core’s Fundamental Trouble

EdWeek: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World Class Education

U.S. News & World Report: Who is Fighting for Common Core

Truth in American Education: State Costs for Adopting and Implementing the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: The History of the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: The History of the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: Opt-Out Movement About More Then Test, Advocates Say

U.S. News & World Report: Who is Fighting Against the Common Core

Why Science: A Historical Timeline of No Child Left Behind

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Common Core: A Solution to America’s Education Problems? appeared first on Law Street.

E-cigarettes are one of America’s latest trends. Since entering the United States over the last ten years, they have taken the smoking community by storm. To many of us however, they are still somewhat of a mystery. Generally, we have a sense that they are less harmful than cigarettes, but how much less harmful exactly? With any new product, it is hard to foresee long-term health effects. But what do we know so far? Should e-cigarettes and their advertisements be regulated similarly to conventional cigarettes? Read on for a breakdown on what e-cigarettes are, the debates over them, and what regulation is being discussed.

What are electronic cigarettes?

E-cigarettes, also known as e-cigs and vaporizer cigarettes, are used as an alternate method to smoking tobacco via cigarettes, pipes, or cigars. They are battery operated and don’t involve smoke inhalation. The idea is that they bypass tobacco smoke, which can include more than 7,000 different harmful chemicals, many of which are known to cause cancer, heart disease, and lung disease. Some of the more well-known poisonous chemicals are cyanide, methanol, and ammonia. In addition, tobacco smoke includes tar, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide.

Many e-cigs are designed to look like cigarettes and create a similar experience for those who are smoking them. A Chinese pharmacist perfected them in 2003-2004 and they were quickly brought to the international market in 2005-2006. In the current, automatic versions, a user sucks on an end piece to activate a sensor that allows a heating element to vaporize a liquid solution held in the mouthpiece.

Components

E-cigarettes are generally reusable and come in three parts: the Mouthpiece, the Atomizer, and the Battery.

• Mouthpiece (Cartridge): The mouthpiece holds the liquid solution, also known as e-liquid and e-juice. This solution can contain different grades of nicotine and come in a variety of flavors. Some are meant to imitate established cigarette brands, while others are more exotic. The nicotine is most often dissolved in propylene glycol, a food additive. The FDA has labeled propylene glycol as a “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) substance.
• Atomizer: This is the heating element that allows for vaporization. It requires replacement every three to six months.
• Battery: The battery is the largest piece of the e-cigarette. It is usually lithium-ion and rechargeable. It catalyzes the heating element and often contains an LED light to showcase activation.

Nicotine 

This product eliminates the inhalation of tobacco smoke, however it is important to note that nicotine itself isn’t very healthy. Although it is not the element of cigarettes that causes cancer, the U.S. Surgeon General has linked nicotine to negative impacts on fetal and adolescent brain development, premature birth, and low birth weight. In rare cases, nicotine can even cause abnormal heart rhythm and atrial fibrillation. It is also known to cause mouth irritation, mouth and throat pain, high blood pressure, and canker sores.

In 2014, a study found that “e-cigarettes with a higher voltage level have higher amounts of formaldehyde, a carcinogen.” This is under debate however due to the methods and nature of the study.

How are conventional cigarettes regulated?

We already know that smoking tobacco is awful for your health. It is to blame for 30 percent of all cancer deaths in the U.S., and accounts for 87 percent of lung cancer deaths in men and 70 percent in women. As a result of these health concerns, cigarettes and their advertisements are heavily controlled. To ascertain whether e-cigarettes should be similarly regulated, we need to understand established cigarette regulations. Here are some recent highlights.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, passed in 2009, authorized the FDC to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products. It requires prominent warning graphic labels for cigarettes and larger text warnings on smokeless tobacco products. It regulates describing tobacco products as “light, low, or mild.” Tobacco companies must yield research on health, toxicological, behavioral, or physiologic effects of tobacco use. The FDA can conduct compliance check inspections of any establishment selling tobacco products and fine any establishments not adhering to set regulations. It also requires tobacco manufactures to receive an order or exemption from the FDA before it can introduce new tobacco products.

Other parts of the law are focused on preventing advertisements aimed at America’s youth. Cigarettes cannot be flavored. The packaging design and color must be muted. It prohibits tobacco brands from sponsoring “sporting, entertainment, or other cultural events.” It prohibits free samples of cigarettes. And lastly, it prohibits tobacco branding on non-tobacco products.

E-Cigarette Regulation

Currently, there aren’t any regulations concerning the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of e-cigarettes. The only type of e-cigarettes subject to regulation are those designed for therapeutic purposes, as the FDA has authority to oversee those.

Only three states in the U.S. ban e-cigarettes in designated 100 percent smoke-free venues: Utah, New Jersey, and North Dakota. Only 15 states restrict the use of e-cigarettes in other venues. There are 162 local laws that restrict e-cigarettes in various venues, but those appear to be few and far between.

Are e-cigarettes dangerous?

The question remains: should we be worried about e-cigarettes? That’s a debate that’s happening across the country. They do eliminate deadly smoke inhalation, the most detrimental part of smoking cigarettes. However, there are still concerning aspects of e-cigarettes that need to be taken into account.

E-Cigs as a Gateway to Smoking for Young Adults

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a 2014 study entitled, “Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarette Use Among US Adolescents.” The study was conducted out of a concern over the increasing use of unregulated e-cigarettes by today’s youth. The results came from a sample of U.S. middle and high school students who participated in the 2011 and 212 National Youth Tobacco Survey. It found:

Use of e-cigarettes was associated with higher odds of ever or current cigarette smoking, higher odds of established smoking, higher odds of planning to quit smoking among current smokers, and, among experimenters, lower odds of abstinence from conventional cigarettes. Use of e-cigarettes does not discourage, and may encourage, conventional cigarette use among US adolescents.

In accordance, a 2013 study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that:

Youth who had never smoked conventional cigarettes but who used e-cigarettes were almost twice as likely to have intentions to smoke conventional cigarettes as those who had never used e-cigarettes.  Among non-smoking youth who had ever used e-cigarettes, 43.9 percent said they have intentions* to smoke conventional cigarettes within the next year, compared with 21.5 percent of those who had never used e-cigarettes.

Additionally, the CDC found that more than 250,000 young adults who have never smoked a cigarette have tried an e-cigarette. That is a triple increase from 2011.

Targeting youth?

If these studies are indicative of reality, then it’s scary to think of how e-cigarette companies are targeting the youth demographic. According to a study published in Pediatrics, “electronic cigarette advertisements increased by 256 percent from 2011 to 2013 and young adult exposure to e-cigarette ads jumped 321 percent in the same time period.“ It found that 75 percent of youth exposure to e-cigarette ads happened through the medium of cable networks like AMC, Comedy Central, and VH1. E-cigarette ads appear on programs like “The Bachelor,” “Big Brother,” and “Survivor,” which were rated amid the 100 highest-rated youth programs in 2012-13.

Other tactics accused of being aimed at young adults include free giveaway samples at music and sporting events, candy flavors, and the glamorization of packaging. All of these actions have been banned for traditional cigarettes companies because of their appeal to the youth.

 Do e-cigs help people quit smoking?

It’s difficult to determine. Studies indicate that they don’t necessarily help stop smoking.

JAMA Study Findings

As previously discussed, the 2014 study published by JAMA found that e-cigarettes do not help smokers quit. Specifically with regard to quitting smoking, 88 (out of 949) smokers claimed to start using e-cigarettes at the beginning of the study. In the next year, 13.5 percent of those 88 quit smoking traditional cigarettes. Almost equal percentages of e-cigarette users and solely traditional smokers quit smoking traditional cigarettes within the year. The difference was so slight, it fell within the study’s margin of error.

There are also testimonials, easily found online, that share success stories of smokers that quit with the help of e-cigarettes. These findings and interviews are not to say that it never happens, but it does not seem to be the norm.

Discussions for Future Regulation

The FDA has the authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The FDA proposed the “deeming rule” on April 24, 2014 to extend tobacco products to include e-cigarettes. If approved, e-cigarettes would be regulated in the same manner as traditional cigarettes. This includes federal prohibition on free sampling, federal warning label requirements, and age verification requirements for retailers. It is still uncertain when and to what extent the FDA will be empowered to regulate e-cigarettes.

Conclusion

Studies looking into e-cigarette health concerns and their position as a gateway product for America’s youth are still new. The product only reached the U.S. in the last ten years and nothing is 100 percent conclusive. On one hand, smoking an e-cigarette is less harmful to your health than smoking a traditional cigarette. If a traditional smoker quits cigarettes and manages to only smoke e-cigarettes for the rest of his or her lifetime, that is a good thing. In the same respect, if a young adult who would have developed a smoking habit only ever uses e-cigarettes because of their availability, that is also a good thing. On the other hand, e-cigarettes aren’t necessarily safe for your health just because they are safer than cigarettes. And we could eventually find that they definitively promote cigarette smoking. The government and FDA can revisit the subject when there is more conclusive information available.

Resources

Primary

JAMA Pediatrics: Electronic Cigarette and Conventional Cigarette Use Among U.S. Adolescents

FDA: Deeming Tobacco Products to Be Subject to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FDA: E-Cigarettes

Additional

BeTobaccoFree.gov: Law/Policies

American Cancer Society: Tobacco-Related Cancers Fact Sheet

American Lung Association: General Smoking Facts

American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation: U.S. State and Local Laws Regulating Use of Electronic Cigarettes

E-Cigarette Research: The Deception of Measuring Formaldehyde in E-Cigarette Aerosol

American Lung Association: Statement on E-Cigarettes

Medical News Today: What Are E-cigarettes?

RTI International: E-Cigarette TV Ads Targeting Youth Increased 256 Percent in Past Two Years

Science News: E-Cigarettes Don’t Help Smokers Quit

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post E-Cigarettes: Should We Treat Them Like Traditional Cigarettes? appeared first on Law Street.

Heroin addiction is a scary reality for many Americans. It’s often an ongoing roller coaster involving several rehab stints, withdrawal, and lifelong addiction struggles. And it’s unfortunately becoming a more common phenomenon. Today, the drug is no longer an outlier compared to its competitors.  It has been identified by some as the new drug of the upper-middle class. Is this a fair assessment? Here are the facts.

What is heroin?

Heroin received its name from the “hero-like,” invincible effect the drug provides its user. It is also called by other names on the street including: H, Junk, Smack, Big H, Hell Dust, and countless others. Additives can change the color from white (pure heroin) to rose gray, brown, or black. Heroin can be laced with a variety of poisons and/or other drugs. It is injected, smoked, and snorted.

What is the science behind heroin?

From a scientific perspective:

Heroin is an opiate made from the chemical morphine, which is extracted from the dried latex of the opium poppy. Morphine is extracted from the opium latex, and these chemicals are used to make opiates, such as heroin, diamorphine and methadone. Heroin is the 3,6-diacetyl derivative of morphine (hence diacetylmorphine) and is synthesised from it by acetylation.

So what does that mean? Essentially, heroin is an opiate–a drug created from opium that sedates, tranquilizes, and/or depresses the body. It’s similar to a common base in a variety of pain killers–morphine. Opium comes from the cultivation of poppy seeds.

Effects of Heroin                                                     

Heroin users report several effects that differ based on the individual. Heroin can cause a temporary state of euphoria, safety, warmth, and sexual arousal. It can also create a sense of disconnect from other people, causing a dreamlike state and/or sense of floating. It is a depressant, rather than stimulant like cocaine, and it can be used as a self-medicated pain reliever.

Adversely, users can immediately experience vomiting, coughing, constipation, hypothermia, severe itching, and inability to orgasm. Long-term effects include rotten teeth, cold sweats, weakening of the immune system, respiratory illnesses, depression, loss of appetite, insomnia, and tuberculosis. Although this is not a direct effect, the sharing of needles from intravenous injection can often lead to AIDS, Hepatitis C, and other fatal infections.

After the effects wear off, users will start to feel extreme withdrawal symptoms if another dose is not administered. The symptoms of withdrawal can include “restlessness, aches and pains in the bones, diarrhea, vomiting, and severe discomfort.”

How do Americans get heroin?

Afghanistan is the “world’s largest exporter,” producing over 80 percent of the world’s opium. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the Afghan poppy cultivation and opium industry amassed $3 billion in 2013, a 50 percent increase from 2012.

Overall, Mexico is the largest drug supplier to the United States. Specifically, Mexico produces Black Tar Heroin, one of the “most dangerous and addictive forms of heroin to date.” This variety looks more similar to hash than powder and can cause sclerosis and severe bacterial infections.

Colombia is the second largest Latin American supplier to the United States. Colombian cartels historically distribute from New York City and are in “full control of the heroin market in the Eastern United States.”

The “Golden Triangle” includes the countries of Burma, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Before the escalation of the Afghan opium market, these southeastern Asian countries reigned over the world’s opium production.

Is it true that middle class heroin use is on the rise?

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study in 2014 about the changing demographics of heroin users in the last 50 years. Over 2,800 people entering treatment programs participated in self-surveys and extensive interviews.

The results do seem to indicate that heroin is transitioning to the middle class. It is leaving the big cities and becoming more mainstream in the suburbs. Of course, there has been heroin drug use in suburbia before; however, now there is a marked increase.

In the 1960s, the average heroin user was a young man (average age of 16.5) living in a large urban area. Eighty percent of these men’s first experiences with an opioid was heroine. Today, the average heroin user is either a male or female in their twenties (average age of 23). Now, 75.2 percent of these users live in non-urban areas and 75 percent first experienced an opioid through prescription drugs. Almost 90 percent of first-time heroin users in the last ten years were white.

In New York City, doctors and drug counselors report a significant increase in professionals and college students with heroin addictions, while emergency rooms also report an increase in opiate overdoses. In Washington D.C., there has been a 55 percent increase in overdoses since 2010.

Why Heroin?

With all this information readily available through school systems and the internet, why is the educated, middle class turning to heroin? Factors may include increases in depression, exposure to painkillers, and acceptance. The perception of the heroin junkie has changed. A user can snort heroin (bypassing the track marks from injection) and go undetected by those around. It can be a clandestine affair–an appealing notion if the user does want to keep their drug use secret.

Anxiety disorders are the largest mental illness in the United States today, affecting more than 40 million Americans. In a country that loves to self-medicate, heroin offers a false yet accessible reprieve from anxiety and depression.

Prescription drug users also move to heroin. Prescription drugs are expensive and only legally last for the prescribed amount of time. To name a few, these gateway prescriptions drugs come in the forms of hydrocodone (Vicodin), fentanyl (Duragesic), and oxycodone (OxyContin). From 1999-2008, prescription narcotic sales increased 300 percent in the United States. Unlike these expensive prescriptions, a bag with approximately a quarter-sized amount of heroin can be sold for $10 off the streets. The transition isn’t hard to imagine, especially when the desired effects are similar.

Case Study: Understanding Suburban Heroin Use

Young upper-middle class adults are generally perceived as being granted every opportunity and foundation for success. Parents can afford a comfortable lifestyle and access to decent education for their children. So the question continues: why are so many from this walk of life turning to heroin? Through the funding of the Reed Hruby Heroin Prevention Project, the Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy conducted a report Understanding Suburban Heroin Use, to “demonstrate the nuanced nature of risk and protective factors among the heroin interviewees.” A risk factor puts a person in danger of using heroin, while a protective factor reduces the chance of use.

The overriding connection among the interviewees is the “experienced degree of detachment between parent and child and the overall lack of communication.” Contrary to common stereotypes, verbal, physical, and/or earlier drug abuse wasn’t vital in providing a pathway to heroin. A large portion of the answers, proved in these case studies, seem to be the previous emotional health of the users.

Example One

Interviewee one is a 31-year-old male who transitioned from pills to heroin. He is described as athletic, articulate, and candid. He was raised in an upper-middle class Chicago suburb. Although his family was close and intact, he experienced a sense of loneliness. His parents practiced a more hands-off approach to parenting that made him feel like an adult at an early age. His parents didn’t drink or abuse drugs during his childhood. His brother was diagnosed with ADHD, while he was not, although he experienced “restlessness.”

He was caught smoking marijuana at age 14 by his father, quit for a couple months, then resumed. His parents assumed he remained clean because he received good grades and they liked his group of friends. At age 17, he chose to work rather than attend college after graduating high school a semester early. He was earning almost as much income as his father. At 17, he tried his first opioid with a friend whose medical condition allowed easy access to OxyContin. When the prescription ran dry, they turned to heroine. He rationalized the transition thinking if he could handle OxyContin, he could handle heroin. Six months later, he was using approximately $100 worth of heroin daily and eventually moved to violent and illegal actions to sustain his supply. He admitted:

Heroin gave me something. It made me feel the best I have ever felt…Maybe I think love was missing. Like, love. I think. I that, uh, because I always felt like alone. Like even though I had good family, I always felt alone. Different.

Example Two

Interviewee two is a 27-year-old female from the western suburbs of Illinois. She is described as attractive, cheerful, and helpful. She was raised in an educated, wealthy family. She was a cheerleader in high school and earned good grades. There aren’t any psychological or substance abuse problems in her family. She felt disconnected from her siblings as they were much older and felt distant from her parents, as well. Her parents often “bickered” but never had big fights. When she confided in her mother as a child that she might be depressed, her mother seemingly brushed it off.

She started smoking pot in junior high at age 15. Although social, her group of friends was not part of the most popular crowd. This was a constant concern. She maintained a B average and continued with sports, while starting to smoke marijuana every day. An after-school job paid for this habit. When her parents found drug paraphernalia in her room, they didn’t probe the situation and just sent her to her room. Searching for a personal connection, she started dating an older boy. She connected with his parents in a way she could not with her own. During senior year, they both started using cocaine, which became a daily habit. She eventually transitioned to heroin, because as she put it in an answer to one question:

Heroin made me feel real mellow like I had not a care in the world. I had a lot of “what am I doing with my life” and physical pain that I was covering up.

After losing her job, she pawned her belongings with a variety of her parents’ things, and stole from others. She refrained from turning to prostitution, although she heard of other girls going down that road. She finally sought out help after witnessing her boyfriend get pistol-whipped and robbed during a drug exchange.

What does this tell us about heroin use?

There are similarities and differences to all of the case studies in this project. In these two examples, the users come from seemingly sturdy homes and backgrounds. The stereotypes of drug users aren’t present in these cases; however, they both felt distant from the people around them at an early age in life. They also wanted to avoid internal and external pressures. This glimpse into the lives of users offers some potential answers to the question of why relatively well educated, middleclass Americans may turn to heroin.

Fighting Back

In March 2014, the United States Department of Justice and the Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to take action against the “urgent public health crisis” of heroin and prescription opiates. Holder claimed that between 2006-2010, there was a 45 percent increase in heroin overdoses. To start, Holder pushed law enforcement agencies to carry the “overdose-reversal drug” Naloxone and urged the public to watch the educational documentary “The Opiate Effect.” Holder also outlined the DEA plan as follows:

Since 2011, DEA has opened more than 4,500 investigations related to heroin. They’re on track to open many more. And as a result of these aggressive enforcement efforts, the amount of heroin seized along America’s southwest border increased by more than 320 percent between 2008 and 2013…enforcement alone won’t solve the problem. That’s why we are enlisting a variety of partners – including doctors, educators, community leaders, and police officials – to increase our support for education, prevention, and treatment.

Conclusion

Heroin has seen a migration to the middle class. But what can we do to stop it? Many of these new users are already educated on the adverse effects of heroin and know the bottom line. A fear of health concerns isn’t enough. We need to stop it at the source, whether it is gateway prescription drugs or emotional health. Substance abuse is a disease to be cured, not the label of a criminal. The Affordable Care Act and Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act aim to expand behavioral health coverage for 62.5 million people by 2020. Every addict, regardless of demographics, should have the ability and necessary tools to recover.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Justice Department: Attorney General Holder, Calling Rise in Heroin Overdoses ‘Urgent Public Health Crisis,’ Vows Mix of Enforcement, Treatment

JAMA Psychiatry Releases: Demographics of Heroin Users Change in Past 50 Years

Reed Hruby Heroin Prevention Project: Understanding Suburban Heroin Use

Additional

About Health: What Heroin Effects Feel Like

Anxiety and Depression Association of America: Facts & Statistics

The New York Times: The Middle Class Rediscovers Heroin

Original Network of Resources on Heroin: Heroin By Area of Origin

RT: America’s $7.6 Billion War on Afghan Drugs Fails, Opium Production Peaks

Tech Times: Study Profiles New American Heroin Addicts

Foundation For a Drug Free World: The Truth about Heroin

WTOP: Heroin Use Rises in D.C. Among Middle, Upper Class

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heroin: The New Drug of the Middle Class? appeared first on Law Street.

In 2008, the film “Taken” shocked America and launched a blockbuster trilogy success. The movie wasn’t just gratuitous action scenes, however–it offered a lens into the world of human trafficking. It included a common stereotype that human trafficking doesn’t occur in the United States, and that it’s the rest of the world’s problem. This is not true–trafficking does happen here in the U.S. and it’s a big issue. Here’s a breakdown of everything you should know about human trafficking in the U.S.

What is human trafficking?

According to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, “victims of human trafficking are subjected to force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of commercial sex or forced labor.” It exists in rural, suburban, and urban locations. Human trafficking is sometimes known as modern day slavery. It usually occurs in the U.S. when people from other nations are brought in illegally to serve as free labor.

Read more about ending modern day slavery.

Human trafficking commonly brings to mind confinement, blindfolds, and drugs. Sometimes that can happen, but human traffickers also practice more subtle approaches. They influence their victims with various means, including:

• Debt Bondage: Captors will claim their victims owe a debt. The debt is paid in exchange for forced sex or labor.
• Public Isolation: Keeping victims from family, friends, work associates, and religious groups can cause victims to feel helpless and weaken their resolve to fight back.
• Confiscations of identification/traveling documents (Passports, visas, identification cards, etc.): Foreigners smuggled into the country need proper documentation to leave the country. The applications for documentation can be tedious and cause embarrassment, especially if they don’t have the identification required.
• Shaming: Human traffickers will threaten exposure to victims’ families, particularly if the victim has been forced to engage in sex work.
• Threat of Deportation/Imprisonment: Victims are threatened to be exposed to immigration authorities for violating immigration laws.
• Financial Control: Traffickers will withhold their victims’ money for “safekeeping,” making it impossible for the victims to set out on their own.

Each of these strategies is designed to make victims feel helpless and alone.  A demoralized victim is a weaker victim. Empowered victims are more likely to run away, alert authorities, and/or take a stand.

What happens to the victims of human trafficking?

There are long-term damages to victims of human trafficking. Tragically, a large percentage of these victims are children. Physically, victims of human trafficking can suffer from disease, stunted growth, and malnutrition. Psychologically, many victims will bypass key social, moral, and/or spiritual development. They can feel ostracized from the outside world. They are also at higher risk to fall victim to similar crimes again.

Statistics

It is important to note that due to the invisibility and nature of these crimes, statistics vary widely. While the following statistics are based on estimates, they’re still very disturbing.

Globally

There are quite a few estimations, but there are approximately 27 million slaves around the world, although only six percent are considered “identified.” There 800,000 people  trafficked across international borders every year, and one million children fall to the commercial sex trade. Of all the world’s trafficking victims, 80 percent are women and children. There are currently 161 countries affected by human trafficking, which is a $32 billion industry.

United States

In the United States, the average entry to prostitution is 12-14 years old. Previously sexualized victims and runaways are high-risk victims. Domestically, between 14,500 and 17,500 victims are trafficked into the United States annually. California has the highest volume of sex trafficking areas. The top 20 highest volume cities include Houston, El Paso, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Chicago, Charlotte, Miami, Las Vegas, New York, Long Island, New Orleans, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Phoenix, Richmond, San Diego, San Francisco, St. Louis, Seattle, and Tampa.

Case Study: Inside the FBI Weekly Podcast

A 2009 podcast, “Inside the FBI,” details the account of a prominent U.S. human trafficking case. In it, Neal Schiff interviews FBI Special Agent Tricia Whitehill. She was involved in a case where multiple members of the Vasquez-Valenzuela family were indicted for “conspiracy, sex trafficking, and various immigration offenses.”

The investigation all started in 2006 when the family’s taxi driver called in a tip to CAST, the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking. He remained a source throughout the investigation. The family had brought in girls in their teens and early twenties from Guatemala to the U.S. The family targeted poor and uneducated girls, some of whom did not even know their own birthdays. The Vasquez-Valenzuela family lured the girls back to the U.S. by promising them jobs in the jewelry and restaurant industries.

Once the girls were successfully smuggled, they were told they owed a debt that had to be paid in prostitution. If the girls didn’t initially comply, they were threatened with violence, witchcraft, and the death of their families. After the arrests of eight out of the nine offenders, one family member was left unaccounted for and went on the run. She was finally weeded out of hiding through the help of publicity and the general public. Public awareness can make all the difference. The leader of the family received the toughest sentence of 40 years in prison.

While this was a case in which the traffickers were successfully apprehended, in many more instances that’s not the case, even in the U.S.

What legislation does the U.S. use to fight trafficking?

Side by side with public awareness, strong legislation is key to the battle against human trafficking. Here are some of the most important laws addressing human trafficking here at home.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000

Long overdue in 2000, this act officially made human trafficking a federal offense. A federal crime is prosecuted under federal criminal law. It also includes provisions for the victims, including federal and state assistance, asylum in the U.S., and shelter and counseling.

Intelligence Reform and Prevention Act of 2004

This law established a Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center to “serve as a focal point for interagency efforts to address terrorist travel.” It promotes cooperation between state, federal, and intelligence agencies in this effort. It also requires an annual assessment delivered to Congress “regarding vulnerabilities in the United States and foreign travel system that may be exploited by international terrorists, human smugglers and traffickers, and their facilitators.”

Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act Of 2000

A large percentage of human trafficking occurs in the labor industry, for example in restaurants. This legislation creates investigations into properties suspected of human trafficking and alerts property owners. This prevents the ability of owners to claim ignorance of criminal activity on their property.

Activism to Fight Trafficking

In order to end human trafficking, legislation won’t be enough. Here are some of the steps that others have taken to attempt to combat human trafficking.

Polaris, CAST, and CCO

In September 2014 in a valiant effort to raise awareness against human trafficking in the greater Los Angeles area, Polaris, a non-profit organization fighting against human slavery, CAST, and Clear Channel Outdoor (CCO) announced their collaboration. CCO donated 25 digital billboards, 20 conventional billboards, and 20 transit shelter posters. The campaign ran in Spanish and English.

The campaign focused on two aspects. First, it promoted the National Human Trafficking Resource Center, a 24-hour, multi-lingual hotline designed for victims and members of the community. The campaign also encouraged victims to come out of the shadows and seek the help they deserve. The campaign tried to induce a sense of community for victims feeling alone.

The promotion also brought on board regionally elected officials and spokesmen like former NFL player and actor Terry Crews. He championed the cause saying:

Modern slavery is the husband coerced through violence to harvest crops, it’s the mother forced to work excessive hours as a domestic servant with little pay, and it’s the daughter sold online for sex against her will. Modern slavery is the 20.9 million people worldwide estimated to be victims of sex and labor trafficking, and we must do what’s in our power to restore their freedom. The more we raise awareness about the help available for victims of human trafficking in America, the more we can empower them to become survivors.

The more people who receive this message, the stronger the fight. The campaign hopes to target more cities across the U.S. in the future.

Presidential Involvement

In a step to bring further awareness to the general public, President Obama designated January to be National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. In a press release, he wrote:

Even today, the darkness and inhumanity of enslavement exists. Millions of people worldwide are held in compelled service, as well as thousands within the United States. During National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, we acknowledge that forms of slavery still exist in the modern era, and we recommit ourselves to stopping the human traffickers who ply this horrific trade.

In September 2012, continuing his commitment, President Obama spoke to the Clinton Initiative in New York. Partnered with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the President laid out a three-part plan to combat human trafficking. First, to “spot it and stop it.” That part of the plan calls for extensive reports to further government understanding, more effective training for all interagency task force members involved, collaboration with transportation services, and aid educators to spot potential trafficked victims among their students. Second, the plan hopes to use the internet as a weapon against human trafficking. The internet has been a great tool for the human-trafficking industry and the President wants to “turn the tables.” The plan aims to recruit tech companies and college students to the fight. Third, the plan aims for further dedicate resources for recovery. For example, to simplify the application for T-visas, designed to protect victims of human trafficking.

Other Groups Involved in the Fight Against Trafficking

There are many other groups involved in the fight against trafficking that attack different parts of the problem. They include:

• Not for Sale: A non-profit, international organization dedicated to raising awareness for sexual slavery.
• Bilateral Safety Corridor Coalition (California): Based in San Diego, the BSCC is comprised of more than 40 government and nongovernment agencies in the U.S. and Mexico to battle human trafficking.
• You Are Never Alone (Maryland): YANA provides a safe haven to women and children involved in prostitution who are seeking a better life.
• New York City Community Response to Trafficking (New York): The CRT is a team of community-based organizations and criminal justice agencies dedicated to responding to and raising awareness of human trafficking.
• Center for Multicultural Human Services (DC): CMHS received a joint federal grant with the Break the Chain Campaign from the Office for Refugee Resettlement to administer pre-certification and post-certification services to victims of trafficking in the Washington D.C. metro area.

Conclusion

With all of these laws in place, and so many activists working to fight it, why is trafficking still happening at such an alarming rate? It is hard to stop an industry so high in demand across the globe, regardless of its vile nature. In recent years, the internet is largely to blame. It allows for anonymity and easy communication internationally between buyer and seller. The deep web, not accessible through standard web searches, is a large black market tool. Another answer is that sex trafficking is almost impossible to obliterate when most of the victims are unidentified. Both rape and sexual slavery victims rarely come forward due to the highly personal sensitivity of the crime. However, we’re taking steps in the right direction with more laws and movements of activism. Hopefully, someday, the travesty that is human trafficking will become a thing of the past.

Resources

Primary

Office of Refugee Resettlement: What is Human Trafficking

Homeland Security: Human Trafficking Laws and Regulations

U.S. Department of State: U.S. Trafficking Report

White House: Presidential Proclamation

Additional 

Case Act: What is Human Trafficking

FBI Podcasts and Radio: International Human Trafficking

Polaris: Polaris, Cast, and Clear Channel Outdoor Law Anti-Human Trafficking Awareness Campaign

Judges’ Journal: President Obama’s Speech on Human Trafficking

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Human Trafficking: Alive in the United States appeared first on Law Street.