State and local governments are barred from withholding federal family-planning grants “for reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services,” according to a new rule by the Department of Health and Human Services. As President Barack Obama’s days in office are waning, so are his chances to secure federal funding for Planned Parenthood and other community health clinics. The rule will go into effect two days before Donald Trump is inaugurated on January 20.

Many anticipate President-elect Trump, and a Republican-controlled Congress, will attempt to dismantle and defund abortion-providing clinics that currently receive federal money. Nearly half of Planned Parenthood-affiliated clinics do not perform abortions. Proposed in September, the rule clarifies the requirements for states when distributing federal money meant for clinics that provide family-planning services like contraception, STD treatment, cancer screenings, and abortions.

“This rule will strengthen access to essential services like cancer screenings and contraception for some of the most vulnerable patients in this country,” said Dr. Karen Scott, Chief Medical Officer of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health. “Public comments showed overwhelming support for finalizing the rule, which clarifies that all organizations able to provide these services should be eligible to compete for funds.”

In 2015, according to the press release from HHS, 91 grants were distributed to nearly 4,000 clinics who provided services to more than four million patients. Current federal law dictates that no government-funds can go directly toward abortions, except in cases or rape or incest, or when the procedure would be lifesaving. But as a dozen or so Republican-led states have sought to block Planned Parenthood and other clinics from seeing any government funding, the new rule should ensure that clinics are not underfunded for political reasons.

A key question moving forward will be how the Trump administration decides to handle the new rule. For one, Trump has expressed support for Planned Parenthood, at least for its services other than abortions. But he also selected Tom Price, who has supported efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, as the next health secretary. Time will reveal the fate of the new ruling, but according to HHS, rolling it back would be a time-consuming process that would require a joint resolution from both chambers of Congress, as well as approval from the incoming president.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post HHS Rule Bars States from Withholding Federal Family-Planning Grants appeared first on Law Street.

The human trafficking industry involves 20.9 million people and $150 billion dollars each year. One new class at the University of Kansas School of Law is looking to lower those horrifying numbers. Led by KU School of Law Clinical Associate Professor and Director of KU School of Law’s Medical-Legal Partnership Clinic Katie Cronin, KU’s Human Trafficking Law and Policy course requires law students to work on real human trafficking cases and provide resources to attorneys, police, health care workers, and victims of human trafficking.

For example, Marci Mauch, one of Cronin’s students, devised training materials to help police and hospital staff recognize patterns consistent with human trafficking victims. According to the materials, signs that someone may be a human trafficking victim include avoiding eye contact, being unaware of their location, letting somebody else speak for them, having certain illnesses such as STIs, and having injuries that do not match their stories. Cronin came up with the idea of teaching hospital staff how to identify victims after learning that human trafficking victims often end up in emergency rooms.

Other examples of projects devised by Cronin’s students include working on the visa application of a human trafficking victim–the application most likely could not have been filled out by the victim as it was hundreds of pages long and required a certain level of expertise. Other students worked on the creation of a manual for attorneys working T visa cases–a visa afforded to victims who turn their human traffickers into authorities. Yet another worked on the creation of a Know Your Rights brochure for victims served by the Willow Domestic Violence Center.

“It’s sort of shocking how many areas of the law human trafficking does impact,” Cronin said in an interview with KU News Service. “Immigration attorneys can provide services to foreign national victims, and even those law students that go into corporate work can help their corporate clients to make sure that their supply chains remain free of human trafficking.”

The University of Kansas is not the first law school to expose its students hands on to human trafficking cases. For example, Boston University School of Law’s Human Trafficking Clinic offers its students the opportunity to provide legal representation for human trafficking victims and assist attorneys in shaping public policy. Columbia Law School’s Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic regularly prepares reports on human trafficking cases, while the George Washington University Law School and the University of Southern California Gould School of Law clinics directly litigate human rights cases in court.

Still, KU School of Law is unique in its efforts to attack human trafficking at the “nexus” of medicine and law. Director of KU’s Anti-Slavery and Human Trafficking Initiative (ASHTI) Hannah Britton said to the Lawrence Journal-World:

All of these survivors need immediate legal assistance… The problem is that this is a hidden population because it’s a criminal activity… Most victims are very scared to come forward because they are fearful of arrest or deportation. They’ve been isolated, and the traffickers are very skillful at creating fear.

Cronin and her students are doing good work creating much needed avenues for victims to overcome these fears.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post KU School of Law Students Aid Human Trafficking Victims appeared first on Law Street.

About four years ago, one of the professors who gave me recommendations for my applications to law school described the institution to me as “trade school.” I imagine that my professor completed his legal studies quite some time ago (a hunch supported by his shock of white hair), because fewer and fewer legal beagles out there seem to share that assessment these days. Consider, for instance, the American Bar Association’s ongoing Task Force on the Future of Legal Education. The ABA formed the Task Force in the summer of 2012 to ascertain how law schools, and the Association itself, should address recent problems in the economics and the delivery of legal education. In comments submitted for the Task Force’s consideration, legal practitioners have frequently raised the issue of whether law schools presently do a good job of preparing students for legal practice. A consensus seems to be emerging that the answer is no.

As The Economist magazine recently noted, American law schools don’t exactly strive to teach practical legal skills, since firms traditionally train new attorneys themselves. Many in the legal academy believe in principle that the doctrinal approach that law schools generally take is a positive good. Syracuse University law professor Kevin Noble Maillard, for example, has argued that “law school is not a trade school,” that “people go to law school, pay tuition and graduate to become many things: educators, business leaders, politicians and, yes, attorneys,” and that law school “prepares people to become leaders in our society, which makes it imperative that they be rigorously trained as thinkers.”

Yet in these belt-tightening times, law firms are increasingly loath to pick up the academy’s slack (if only because clients are getting tired of footing the bill). I, for one, can’t say I blame them. My application referee may not have been quite on the money when he described law school as “trade school,” but more’s the pity. The constant refrain I hear from practicing attorneys is that they learned little or nothing about legal practice in law school, which defies common sense. Lawyering involves a lot of hands-on work that can’t be taught in the abstract, from drafting contracts to persuading clients of the right pleas to enter or claims to file. Given that an increasingly expensive legal education is almost universally required of anyone who wants to enter the profession, it’s only logical that law school should put greater emphasis on practical skills.

Professor Maillard’s position strikes me as rather misguided. He tellingly prefaced his statement with “at the risk of sounding ‘liberal artsy’”—which is exactly the point. There is no logical reason why law schools should consider it their mission to “emphasize educated citizenship.” That goal seems much better suited to undergraduate programs, which in any case cast a much wider net than law schools do and will thus reach more of the societal leaders of tomorrow. Training those leaders to have certain knowledge and to think in certain ways is desirable—but not all such budding public figures go to law school, and American law students have to go to college first anyway. It would make more sense to let them learn “educated citizenship” while earning their bachelor’s degrees and learn how to practice law in law school.

Some schools have already begun getting with the program, establishing practical skills courses and requirements. The ABA’s own Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has received a petition to amend law school accreditation standards. In addition to requiring J.D. students to earn 15 academic credits in experiential courses, the proposal would also require each student to take at least one law clinic or externship in order to graduate. This seems like an eminently wise proposition. Every time I’ve heard a lawyer tell me that he or she didn’t learn anything about legal practice in law school, I’ve wondered, “Didn’t you do any clinics?” Lawyers themselves seem to agree that clinic work is one of the main means by which law students can learn how to be attorneys while still in school. In a 2004 ABA study, lawyers who had been practicing for two or three years rated clinical courses their third most useful law school experience—behind legal jobs during summers and the school years, and ahead of legal writing courses and internships and traditional doctrinal courses.

So if clinics have so much potential to prepare law students for legal practice, then why are so many of them graduating from law school so operationally clueless? After a bit of digging, I found that—as I suspected—clinical training isn’t as widely accessible as it could or should be. According to data from the ABA and the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), only 15% of law schools presently require or guarantee legal clinic experience to all students. Yet according to Robert R. Kuehn, a professor at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, the same data indicate that 84% of law schools have the resources to offer clinical opportunities to all of their students at little or no additional cost in higher tuition.

So I look favorably on the proposal made by the aforementioned petition submitted to the ABA. Requiring all law students to get at least a taste of what lawyers actually do on the job will help make sure that graduates are ready to do what they are studying to do. It can also help give prospective law school applicants a better idea of what they may be getting themselves into—when they still have a chance to avoid it.

—

Featured image courtesy of [walknboston via Wikipedia]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Should Law School Be More Like Trade School? appeared first on Law Street.