Back in the day, entering into a profession could be very challenging for newcomers. This was particularly true in European countries during the Middle Ages when each profession developed its own organization for members to mutually assist each other and control entrance into the field. These organizations were called guilds and functioned as part union/part cartel. Those lucky enough to belong to a guild reaped benefits like a pension for his family and networking opportunities. This also regulated the quality of the services the profession had in a given locality, which benefitted consumers. For people who wanted to become part of a profession but were not born into a family that held a spot or were otherwise well-connected, guilds functioned as a barrier to entry. This kept competition tightly controlled and promoted the interests of existing members at the expense of customers and those seeking entry.

Today there are many professions that require licenses and testing in order to gain entry–most of us are familiar with the licensing requirements for doctors and lawyers. Take an example I’m intimately familiar with–there are many hurdles to jump through in order to become an attorney. First law school, which can carry a hefty price tag. You then need to take an ethics exam and the bar exam if you would like to practice. The fees for these exams, if you count a review course as part of the cost, can be thousands of dollars. After that, you have to pay for the license, which varies by state, and bar dues, which also vary. The license also doesn’t easily transfer from one state to another. So if you wanted to join the bar in a new state and you haven’t been practicing for a number of years, you would have to take the bar exam again and pay the fees to enter into that state’s bar. For many, the cost of getting licensed in multiple states is prohibitively expensive.

The rationale behind occupational licensing is to control the quality of the services for the customer. With the medical profession, this argument is particularly compelling because of the amount of knowledge required to practice medicine safely and the nature of the risks involved. Consumers can’t really comparison shop for a doctor the same way they can for other services so it is critically important that all doctors have a minimum level of competency. And since other doctors are the only ones who would know if a doctor is competent or not, the medical profession to a large extent controls entry and polices itself. The same is true of many other professions.

But the argument in favor of occupational licensing requirements and regulations, made in the name of consumer safety, makes less sense for some other professions. It may take years of training to become a good interior designer but it probably does not require multiple years of training, multiple exams, and licensing fees to become a safe one. And in an aesthetically based profession like interior design, customers are very well suited to comparison shop for what they want and bargain for less than ideal services at a better price if they choose to. For some of these professions, licensing laws may be functioning not to keep customers safe but to protect profits of the profession’s existing members.

Increasing Requirements

According to a White House paper, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of professions that now require some form of licensing. About one-quarter of all workers in the United States now need a license to practice their trade, which is a five-fold increase from the 1950s. But this increase isn’t because Americans are working in different professions than they used to–rather, more fields are now requiring licenses.

The video below should be taken with several grains of salt, as it is designed to advocate against occupational licensing requirements, but it provides a good framework for the kinds of professions that now need licenses.

Licensing requirements for many professions can have a significant impact on the people seeking to join them. If you want to be a security guard, for example, it matters a great deal which state you are looking for work in. If you live in Michigan, it will take you three years to obtain your license while in other states it will only take you 11 days. For people that move across state lines–take military families, for example–they need to meet the licensing requirements in their new state, which can cost them time and money. As this video from John Stossel suggests, licensing requirements may also price out minorities and the poor from entering professions that require a license and are not always tied to protecting consumer safety.

These regulations can also depress wages for the workers who are not part of the profession and increase the cost of services to consumers. The White House paper cited earlier estimates a 10 to 15 percent decrease in wages and a 3 to 16 percent increase in pricing. This increase in pricing does not necessarily correlate with an increase in safety or the quality of the services. The fact that many of these licensing requirements do not necessarily have a positive impact on services is one of the strongest arguments for eliminating or reevaluating certain licenses.

Why Do We Have Occupational Licensing?

If these licensing requirements are not promoting safety and controlling quality, why do we have so many of them? Take a look at this explanation:

In the case of the medical profession and other professions that really do present safety concerns, these licensing requirements can be beneficial for consumers. Most people do not have the expertise to evaluate whether an electrician is safely performing the work in their home or if it has been done well. The ability to research a company on the internet before you employ its services gives you access to its reputation, but it is still helpful for people looking to hire an electrician to know that the candidates have had some training. It allows a consumer to be confident in the electrician’s ability to safely provide the service.

But for a profession like hair braiding, the consumer’s ability to assess the quality of the services and its safety is very high. You can immediately determine if you are pleased with the quality and there is very minimal risk to your safety. Any risk is probably one that a consumer would be able to identify and avoid. And in an industry like this, the ability to find out a professional’s reputation for quality and safety on the internet or elsewhere beforehand can eliminate a lot of providers who give poor service.

Many of these licensing requirements are not related to consumer safety or the quality of services but to the advocacy power of the professions that require licenses. As Milton Friedman points out in his speech, the best way for the profession to keep the cost of their services high is by limiting the number of people providing those services. By creating laws that fine individuals operating without a license, the cost of providing that service may be too high for outside competitors. This lack of competition protects the existing companies. It is often the professional associations who lobby to have these licenses imposed and fight efforts to take them away, not consumers.

In some cases, members of a profession are the best-qualified people to determine if another practitioner is performing the work safely. Using the medical profession once again as an example, in cases that are highly technical (such as a surgical procedure) it would be difficult for someone without medical training to figure out if the procedure was done negligently or not. For this reason, doctors often work as expert witnesses when they review themselves or in court. A lay person just would not have the knowledge to make those determinations.

Because of this, members of the profession are given considerable leeway to determine the requirements to obtain a license. The professional associations in each state lobby for the regulations that they think are necessary and may even help legislators craft the language of licensing requirements, or take charge of them entirely. This gives the professions a tremendous amount of control over their industries. It is also one reason why licensing requirements vary widely across different states. It isn’t that the process of braiding hair is much more dangerous in states where licensing is required than it is in states where it is not; it is because the states that require licensing have a more concerted effort by existing hair-braiders to impose and maintain a licensing requirement.

Conclusion

Some occupational licenses make a lot of sense to have. Professions where safety is an important concern and where it is difficult for consumers to judge the competency of the people they are hiring are ones that should have a base requirement for those entering the profession. But many of the professions that require licenses are ones in which those licenses do not protect consumers. Instead, they protect the members of that profession from more competition at the expense of job seekers and at a cost to the public. Licenses that are not tied to consumer safety should be reevaluated in order to ensure that they are necessary and that their purpose is to promote safety and quality.

For example, a license for a cosmetologist that requires 2,000 hours of training has probably exceeded whatever legitimate safety concerns may exist in the field. The same goal of promoting consumer safety could perhaps be met with a much less onerous requirement–such as a shorter certification process that focuses just on hygiene and safety practices. Licensing fees that are paid to state professional associations but are not payments for the costs of classes and tests could also be eliminated without adversely affecting public safety.

Reevaluating these licenses and eliminating the ones that do not benefit consumers will create new opportunities for workers to enter professions and for entrepreneurs to start businesses. It would also decrease the prices consumers face for many services. If there are safety concerns in an industry that do require regulation they should be dealt with, but many of these licenses and requirements could likely be eliminated or reduced without reducing consumer safety.

Resources

The Institute for Justice: License to Work

WhiteHouse.gov: Occupational Licensing: A Framework for Policymakers

FiveThirtyEight: Licensing Laws Are Shutting Young People Out of the Job Market

U.S. News: Short Sighted Policy: Studying Opticians Shows Occupational Licensing Doesn’t Help Consumers

Bureau of Labor Statistics: The De-Licensing of Occupations In the United States

Foundation For Economic Education: Does Occupational Licensing Protect Consumers?

Politico: It Takes 890 Days to Become a Barber in Nevada 

Forbes: Citing Adam Smith and Milton Freedman, Obama’s Economic Advisors Back Occupational Licensing Reform

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Have Occupational Licensing Laws Gotten Out Of Control? appeared first on Law Street.

Tennessee’s governor, Bill Haslam, vetoed HB0615 yesterday, a bill that would have designated the Holy Bible as the state book of Tennessee. Before the governor’s veto, the bill was passed in the state house by a vote of 55-38 and in the senate by a vote of 19-8. While some argue that naming the Bible as the official state book would fundamentally intertwine the church and state, others argue that the Bible’s historic and economic significance make it relevant and appropriate as a state book.

Opponents of the bill were outraged by the thought of the Bible being designated as the state book for several reasons and, therefore, thankful that the governor vetoed the bill. First came the obvious question of the government promoting or advancing one religion over another. The ACLU-Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg pointed out potential issues with the legislation, saying:

Lawmakers’ thinly veiled effort to promote one religion over other religions clearly violates both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions.

Instituting the Bible as the state book would suggest the furtherance of Bible-based religions, like Christianity, over other religions that aren’t based on the bible. It would fundamentally violate the separation of church and state laid out in both the national and state constitutions.

Thank you, Gov. Bill Haslam, for taking a stand for religious liberty and against theocracy. https://t.co/MTREfE6Z9w

— David Waters (@DavidWatersCA) April 15, 2016

Others made fun of Tennessee for being a state so focused on religion with satirical and ironic tweets.

The Tennessee state senate voted to make the Bible the state book, I'm assuming because nobody there could name another one.

— J. Elvis Weinstein (@JElvisWeinstein) April 6, 2016

Hope the new official Tennessee state book doesn't fry in my hands while reading it. Think I'd rather go to hell

— Josh Sebastian (@tnseabass) April 6, 2016

One state Senator, Jeff Yarboro from Nashville, recognized that, even though it may be hard for some members of the legislature to want to vote against an important symbol of their faith, they needed to consider the constitutionality of their actions. “I understand that it’s hard to vote against the Bible—no one wants to do that. We have an obligation to follow the Constitution,” Yarboro told the Tennessean.

The final argument against making the Bible the state book is one that the governor himself made, and it’s not what you might expect. Similar to what our founding fathers claimed about the separation of church and state, Governor Haslam feels that making the Bible the Tennessee state book would trivialize the Bible. He even cited the founding fathers in his argument. In a letter to Beth Harwell, the Tenessee Speaker of the House, he said,

Our founders recognized that when the church and state were combined, it was the church that suffered in the long run.

He also acknowledged the difference between religion being celebrated and openly discussed in government and the actual establishment of religion by government:

Men and women motivated by faith have every right and obligation to bring their belief and commitment to the public debate. However, that is very different from the governmental establishment of religion that our founders warned against and our Constitution prohibits.

In order to override the governor’s veto, the legislature just needs a simple majority in each chamber, which seems like it could be easily attained based on the original vote counts. So, keep an eye on Tennessee everyone. It looks like it could soon become the first state to recognize a religious text as their state book and it will be interesting to see the repercussions that it may face.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Tennessee Governor Rejects Bible as Official State Book appeared first on Law Street.

In an attempt to match some of the sexist legislation that’s been passed in state legislatures lately, a Kentucky state representative has drafted a bill to create several new hoops for men to jump through in order to purchase drugs that treat erectile dysfunction.

Representative Mary Lou Marzian wants to use her bill, HB 396, to call attention to the amount of intervention into women’s health rights from the primarily male General Assembly of Kentucky. She condescending phrases back at the men who use similar arguments to defend their anti-abortion legislation. Saying things like, “this is about family values” and “I want to protect these men from themselves,” whenever she talks about why she decided to craft this bill.

The bill itself has whereas clauses that stipulate the potential risks of taking drugs like Viagra and Cialis and a well thought out list of regulations that will be placed on men trying to buy these drugs if the bill is passed. What are these regulations? There are four in total:

1. Men will have to consult a doctor on two separate occasions before getting a prescription for these drugs.
2. These drugs will only be prescribed to married men.
3. Men will need to have a letter of consent from their spouse in order to get a prescription.

And the kicker:

4. Men will have to make a sworn statement, with their hand on a bible, saying that they will only use the drug for sexual relations with their own wife.

Marzian’s bill is specifically meant to attack another piece of legislation known as the informed consent bill, which was signed into law earlier this month by Kentucky’s Governor, Matt Bevin. That law requires women who are considering an abortion to meet with a doctor–either in person or via video–within 24 hours of going to have this abortion. The law, which was drafted and passed almost exclusively by men, is supposedly an attempt to create a state that places a greater emphasis on family values. Rep. Marzian, a Democrat from Louisville,  that Republican lawmakers frequently use these positions on abortion as talking points to improve their chances of reelection. She’s concerned with the way they frame the abortion restrictions in terms of support for :

They say they’re about protecting the family, but they won’t vote to regulate booster seats, to enforce smoking bans or for early child education.

In reality, what this bill actually does is place more requirements on women trying to get an abortion, essentially shaming them for an already potentially traumatizing procedure. These bills may not be as focused on family values as the legislature might like to claim.

What has the response to her tongue-and-cheek proposal been like? Some people don’t get it; they think that Rep. Marzian’s legislation is a bill that will likely become a law, rather than a clever form of social commentary. On Facebook, comments have gotten heated. Some readers argue that the government needs to get out of our personal lives, claiming that it’s pretty frightening that a representative thinks that filling a prescription and abortion are the same. Clearly, those commenters just don’t get it.

Just like Leslie Knope shaming men holding “Yes All Men” and “Protect HIStory” signs at a political rally, Rep Marzian is calling out the hypocrisy of men telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies, claiming they are just doing what they know is best for us. The bottom line is, we have got to move past this whole protector image that old white men in the government have of themselves. Women are doing just fine and know how to make decisions about their own health; we certainly don’t need men protecting us from ourselves.

Though no one expects it to actually go anywhere, the bill provokes an interesting discussion and is a brilliant way to call out the instances of sexism that we see so often in our legislatures today. Word on the street is that this liberal Kentucky representative isn’t done yet, either. She supposedly has plans in the work to introduce a new bill requiring people wanting to obtain a gun permit to talk to victims of gun violence 24 hours before receiving the permit. I guess trolling state legislators may just be the new way to get things done and make a statement these days–keep it up, Mary Lou!

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Permission Slips for Viagra? Kentucky Rep. Gives Men a Taste of Their Own Medicine appeared first on Law Street.

Update: We Have Winners

The three winning tickets announced so far were sold in California, Tennessee, and Florida. In these states, the winners will be asked to reveal their name to the public, meaning they are most likely planning out how to escape the country and ensuing media blitz. All three winners will have the luxury of paying no additional state taxes on their jackpot, so they’ll have more money to put towards their great escape.

The Powerball lottery has worked the country’s ‘temporarily embarrassed millionaires‘ into a frenzy with an unprecedented jackpot that estimates put at around $1.5 billion. The next closest jackpot, from a Mega Millions lottery in 2013, lags behind at a measly $590 million.

So how did we reach this astronomical number? It turns out to be more than just pure luck: Powerball actually reduced the already minuscule chance of winning by about 40 percent last summer (from 1 in 175 million to 1 in 292 million). By lowering the chance of a winner in each individual drawing, the jackpot rolls over to the next drawing leading to unprecedented windfalls.

Han Solo won’t let the Powerball changes stop him from his chance at fortune

1. #NotAllStates

Still, even if you refuse to be daunted by how slim the chance of a win is, you’re not going to have the same Powerball experience in every state or even all states–six states do not participate in the national lottery. In many states such as Utah, gambling is illegal, which bars stores from even selling tickets. For others, like Nevada and Mississippi, the lottery is seen as competition for the states’ well-established casinos. Residents of those states, plus Alabama, must visit neighboring states to purchase their tickets. For the remaining residents without access to Powerball–Hawaiians and Alaskans–a visit to another state isn’t an easy option.

So, if you’re in one of the remaining 47 states and territories (including D.C. and the Virgin Islands) you’re able to buy a ticket. The trouble is, even then you’ll have a different lottery experience depending on where you purchase your ticket.

2. Staying Anonymous

One much-heralded piece of advice from former winners is “Don’t tell anyone you’ve won. Anyone.” While a brief moment of celebrity may seem appealing, the intense media scrutiny as well as relatives, friends, and acquaintances coming out of the woodwork for their piece of the pie are enough to drive any winner crazy. Only six of the participating states and territories allow winners to remain anonymous: Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Carolina. For other states, winners’ names and hometowns are a matter of public record.

Importantly, these rules apply to the place where you purchase your ticket, not your state of residence. That means that if you really do believe in your lucky numbers, it may be worth visiting another state to buy your tickets, lest you become an unwitting overnight sensation.

3. The Money

A representation of the winner’s first day with their money, even after taxes.

Lottery winners have the choice between a lump-sum payment, or an annuity paid out over 30 years. The lump-sum is cut down from the advertised billion-plus to $930 million, and that’s before taxes. Factor in the two taxes you’ll have to pay on this total–a federal tax of 25 percent and additional state taxes.

Your winnings will also look a lot different depending on where you live because state tax laws on lottery winnings vary widely. Your lump-sum total could wind up anywhere from $615,474,000 in New York to $697,500,000 in California (New York taxes 8.82 percent while California has no tax on lottery winnings). If you decide to take the annuity a ticket purchased in a high-tax area like Washington, D.C. would net you a yearly payment of $33,250,000, while a ticket from a tax-free lottery haven like Texas earns you $37,500,000 each year. California and Texas are joined by Wyoming, Washington, Tennessee, South Dakota, Puerto Rico, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, and Delaware.

This means that if you’re looking to maximize profits while staying anonymous, buying your lottery tickets in Delaware is your best bet. However, if you’re really looking to be smart about it, the best option is to not buy a lottery ticket in the first place.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Billion Dollar Powerball? It Depends On Your State appeared first on Law Street.

Oklahoma really is coming up with some interesting bills this legislative session. Last week I wrote about a bill that would outlaw Advanced Placement United States History classes from being taught in the state. Now, they’ve come up with another odd and awkwardly invasive issue–a legislator wants to ban couples from getting married if one of them has a sexually transmitted disease.

Oklahoma Senator Anthony Sykes introduced Senate Bill 733, which would create a new requirement for any couples seeking marriage licenses. The couple must each submit to a blood test within 30 days of submitting their application for the license. According to the bill, it appears that in order to receive the license they either both need to be STD-free, or if one of them has an STD, it can’t be at a stage where it would be able to be transmitted to another. It’s unclear what would happen if they both tested for an STD.

The bill reads:

The State Board of Health shall require a blood test for the discovery of syphilis and other communicable or infectious diseases prior to the issuance of a marriage license.

The bill is lauded as a way to provide people with information of their STD status, which is always a good idea, but legal experts don’t necessarily think that it will help prevent STD transmission. STDs tend to be more prevalent among younger, unmarried people. It also seems to imply that someone with an STD and someone without an STD can’t safely have sex with someone who isn’t infected. That’s untrue, and irresponsible to imply.

Furthermore, there are some clear privacy issues with this bill. This may require that those couples who apply for marriage licenses and then get STD tested then have their statuses made publicly available. That’s based on how the bill is worded now, which requires couples to file the results with the clerk after being tested. That not only invades the privacy of those couples, but also violates the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

If Oklahoma were to enact this bill, it would be a sort of throwback to laws that used to be on the books in many states; however, every other state has repealed its premarital testing laws, with the exception of Montana. A 2009 study at Notre Dame explained why these laws no longer make much sense, saying blood test laws:

were enacted in the first half of the twentieth century as part of public health campaigns to reduce the spread of communicable diseases and prevent birth defects. The laws required couples applying for a marriage license to be screened for certain conditions, commonly rubella or syphilis. However, after penicillin proved to be a cheap and effective treatment for syphilis and vaccines were developed for rubella, these screenings were no longer considered cost-effective.

While this law probably comes from a good place, it’s antiquated and overreaching. Providing better sex education and resources for young people would go much further to prevent STD transmission than unnecessarily delving into the lives of engaged couples.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oklahoma Wants to Test Marrying Couples for STDs appeared first on Law Street.

Victims of rape often experience multiple hardships in the aftermath of their attack. Not only can they sustain serious physical injuries during an assault, but many also experience emotional trauma. Some may lose a job or home, or will need to relocate due to safety concerns. Each case is different, but there are many common issues experienced by rape victims, especially when it comes to medical problems.

It’s estimated that 19-22 percent of rape victims experience genital injuries. Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are contracted by 40 percent of rape victims, while one to five percent become pregnant by their rapists. Thus, for rape victims, medical expenses can be quite costly.

Read on to learn more about federal regulations, state practices, and current issues in medical assistance for rape victims.

How does the federal government regulate medical assistance for rape victims?

Medical assistance for rape victims is addressed by the federal government through two distinct laws: VAWA and VOCA.

What is VAWA and how does it help rape victims?

VAWA is the Violence Against Women Act, first passed by the federal government in 1994. It’s a comprehensive law aimed at protecting women who were victims of violence, including rape. Among other things, VAWA mandates that rape victims cannot be forced to pay for their own rape examination or for services of protective order. Essentially, it outlines the minimum requirements and necessities victims of rape should be entitled to, but still gives states substantial freedom to create their own guidelines, especially when it comes to financial assistance.

Since the law was passed, it has gone through several revisions. First, VAWA was reauthorized in 2000, enhancing penalties for abusers, adding immigration protections, and creating programs for elderly and disabled women. In 2005, Congress reauthorized VAWA again, focusing on amending rules regarding states’ accountability and public health responses to domestic violence. This revision also advanced rape victims’ rights, by requiring states to cover the costs of the rape kit. In the case of noncompliance, states would lose certain federal crime fighting grants.

The 2013 reauthorization of VAWA clarified the issue of forensic examination even further, providing that in no circumstances can rape victims be charged upfront for their medical examination, and reiterating that such medical services should always be provided free of charge. At the same time, this last revision still allowed states to require victims to submit claims to their medical insurance company, but emphasizes that victims are not responsible for paying deductibles or co-payments for the services provided. The newly revised version of VAWA also pays more attention to public outreach, stating that every victim should be promptly informed about free-of-charge forensic examinations.

What are VOCA and the Crime Victim Compensation Program?

VOCA is the Victim of Crimes Act that was first passed by Congress in 1984. It created the Crime Victims Fund, which provides federal monetary assistance to states through the Victim Assistance Grant and Crime Victim Compensation Program (CVCP). The fund’s balance was estimated at more than $4 billion as of August 2010. As states receive federal funding they are supposed to use it to compensate crime victims. As of now, state compensation programs pay $500 million annually to more than 200,000 victims across the country.

Each state has its own Crime Victim Compensation Program (CVCP) that provides financial assistance for victims of crimes, including rape victims. Some state CVCPs were created even before VOCA came into affect. The first program was established in California in 1965. Federal grants cover 25-60 percent of the program’s costs. The rest of the money comes from local and state funds that are generated from criminal fines and penalties obtained through the court system. According to recent statistics, rape victims receive eight percent of all CVCP funds.

Typical programs provide help with medical bills, mental health treatments, funerals, and lost wages. As states decide what will be covered by their CVCP, the degree of financial assistance varies greatly. Some states may pay for travel costs to medical facilities, moving expenses, housekeeping, and even child care, while others will hardly cover medical bills. In addition, states may offer a variety of services, but provide different benefit amounts as well as have specific eligibility requirements.

What are the main issues in securing medical assistance for rape victims?

Variations in State Practices

Federal laws provide minimal guidelines to states about how to manage federal grants and what services to cover. This rift creates disparities, as each state has its own set of rules and regulations about medical assistance for rape victims. VAWA only mandates that states provide forensic medical examinations free of charge, but doesn’t mention non-forensic medical expenses. Thus, rape victims may end up paying for their medical treatment, including injuries sustained from rape, emergency contraception, and medications to prevent or treat HIV infections and other STIs. Some states cover these expenses, but are less likely to do so as there is no federal requirement to pay for these specific services.

For example, in Missouri, the victim compensation program won’t pay for treatment of injuries, medications, emergency contraception, STI testing, pregnancy testing, emergency room fees, or counseling. Essentially, it won’t cover any of the “collateral” costs of rape. It will only pay for the forensic examination as mandated by the federal law.  At the same time, in Montana, rape victims are provided with free pregnancy testing, STI testing, medication, hospital or emergency room stays, and even drug testing. Only 15 states cover the costs of STI testing, 13 cover pregnancy testing, six pay for emergency contraception, and only two provide free-of-charge counseling in relation to sexual assault.

State Caps on Medical Services

Not only does each state have a distinct set of laws that regulate what medical services can be covered by its victim compensation program, but many states have caps on how much they will pay for those medical services. The range is quite broad, from $450 in Oklahoma to $25,000 in Rhode Island. Five states–Utah, Vermont, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Arkansas–will cover a set percentage of the medical bills ranging from 70-100 percent. Some states will compensate victims only for the forensic medical exam, the bare minimum required by the federal law. Even in this case, victims will have to pay for their rape kit first, and apply for compensation of their expenses later. Interestingly, in Montana, rape victims can be compensated only if the fund still has money. If the fund runs out of money, victims will be charged for all medical services received.

Lax Enforcement of Federal Laws

In some states victims of rape are still billed for their forensic examinations. Such exams are essential for collecting evidence such as semen, blood, and tissue samples. Without a proper medical exam after a rape, the ability to solve the crime and to convict the rapist greatly diminishes. In California, in order to be eligible for the free forensic examination, rape victims have to cooperate with the police in the ongoing investigation. In Texas, victims of rape are mandated to report the crime to authorities within a four-day period. If they fail to do so, their medical exam won’t be covered. Illinois covers such exams only for low-income or uninsured victims, while Maryland doesn’t explicitly prohibit billing the costs of a forensic exam to the victim. Thus, some states may find loopholes in federal regulations to bill victims for their forensic examinations.

The cost of a rape kit can be up to $1,200. Watch the video below to learn more about how victims of sexual crime are billed in Louisiana.

Hospital and Law Enforcement Mistakes  

Hospitals and police stations are often the first points of contact for crime victims, including those who are the victim of rape. Hospitals administer forensic exams and provide other necessary medical treatments, and they are in charge of medical billing. As financial assistance for victims of rape is regulated by federal, state, and local rules, billing departments have to know how to navigate the system in order to bill correctly. They often mistakenly charge victims of sexual crime for forensic exams and other services due to improper paperwork or their lack of knowledge about the process. The medical file of a rape victim may not contain information on whether he or she was a victim of rape. At the same time, billing employees can be confused about the current laws, or not aware of the latest revisions. In most instances, after hospitals become aware of their billing mistake, they will make it right by billing CVCP or other organizations that should bear the costs of the rape kit.

The same confusion is taking place in police departments across the country. Some employees are still not aware about the latest VAWA revisions and still use outdated information, charging rape victims for their forensic exams.

How do these issues affect rape victims?

As medical assistance for rape victims varies greatly from state to state, some victims will have to foot some or most of the bill themselves. As a consequence, victims of rape can end up refusing medical treatment or skipping essential HIV or STI testing, harming their health.

At the same time, some victims may still be charged for their forensic examination, which is an essential part of the evidence collection process. If the victim is unsure about the costs of the exam, he or she can be reluctant to report the crime or undergo the procedure in the first place. As rape cases are already hard to prove, it can become almost impossible to obtain justice without the rape kit.

Billing rape victims for medical services, either by mistake or according to variations in state laws, can also harm a victim’s personal life. In many cases, victims of rape don’t want their family members to know about the victimization. If the parents of the victim hold the insurance policy, it can lead to shaming or family issues, or in some cases re-victimization, if the attacker is a family member.

Conclusion

Victims of rape receive financial assistance from a variety of sources including federal, state, and local funds. In addition, their insurance policies, if they have one, can cover some of the expenses. The federal government acknowledged in its latest revision of VAWA that victims should never pay for their forensic examination, as it’s a part of the evidence-collection process. At the same time, it’s not clear who should be paying for the “collateral costs” such as HIV, STI, and pregnancy testing as well as the treatment of physical injuries.

Resources

Primary

Congress: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

White House: Factsheet: The Violence Against Women Act

Congressional Research Service: The Violence Against Women Act: Overview, Legislation, and Federal Funding

Additional

National Center For Victims of Crime: Crime Victims Compensation

National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards: Crime Victim Compensation: An Overview

ProPublica: Despite Promises, Some Rape Victims Stuck Paying Exam Bills

NPR: Despite Law, Rape Victims Sometimes Pay For Medical Services

New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault: The Cost of Rape

CBS Evening News: For Some Sex Assault Victims, Ordeal Carries Price Tag

Huffington Post: Worst States For Pregnant Rape Victims

Frisky: Some Rape Victims Are Forced to Pay For Their Medical Treatment

Huffington Post: Rape Victim’s Choice: Risk AIDS or Health Insurance?

NOLA: Billing for Rape: Louisiana Sex Assault Victims Often Face Hefty Bills for Medical Care

AEquitas: Summary of Laws & Guidelines. Payment of Sexual Assault Forensic Examinations

Human Rights Watch: Making Rape Victims Pay

ProPublica: As Rape Victims Wait, Money For DNA Testing Goes Unused

Office of Crime Victims Advocacy Quarterly Newsletter: Victims of Crime Act and the Creation of Victim Compensation Program

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Medical Treatment For Rape Victims: Who is Responsible? appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court has an exciting new term ahead of it, and today’s case is no exception. This week the justices will hear arguments in Heien vs. North Carolina, a case that at its core poses one very simple question: should police officers be held to a higher standard? It’s a timely question, given the events of this summer, and one whose answer may hold some interesting ramifications.

In 2009, a man named Nicholas Heien was with another man who was driving his car in North Carolina when he was pulled over for having a busted tail light. Officers ended up searching the car — which belonged to Heien — and discovering a relatively substantial amount of cocaine. Heien was arrested and charged with drug trafficking.

Now under North Carolina law, if Heien was pulled over because he was breaking a law, and the subsequent search yielded the cocaine discovery, that would have been legal. The problem is that he wasn’t actually breaking a law when he was pulled over — technically, as long as you have one functioning tail light, you’re operating within the law in North Carolina. The officer who pulled him over was simply wrong about the law.

The Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment requires that searches are lawful — and there’s significant evidence to suggest that the search of Heien’s car was not. There needs to be reasonable suspicion that a law has been violated in order to conduct that search. A non-functioning brake light, which is not even illegal, is simply not enough.

Heien lost his original trial. He then won an appeals case, but lost in the North Carolina State Supreme Court. The case will now be making its way to the Supreme Court, which will have to figure out whether the North Carolina Supreme Court made the right decisions saying that Heien’s arrest was fair, even though the cop who pulled him over was ignorant of the laws in the state in which he worked.

The State Supreme Court held that requiring officers to be walking encyclopedias of the states’ laws is ridiculous and creates much higher standards than the Fourth Amendment mandates. But the dissenters pointed out that allowing that kind of subjectivity could create a sort of slippery slope. In the dissent, Justice Robin Hudson wrote:

The danger in adopting a new constitutional rule here is that this particular case seems so innocuous: Of course it is reasonable that an officer would pull over a vehicle for a malfunctioning brake light. But this new constitutional rule will also apply in the next case, when the officer acts based on a misreading of a less innocuous statute, or an incorrect memo or training program from the police department, or his or her previous law enforcement experience in a different state, or his or her belief in a nonexistent law.

Then there’s the context of this August to discuss. The events in Ferguson propelled a national dialogue, one that was opened by stop-and-frisk laws, militarization of our police departments, and dozens of other issues around the country about the power of our police departments. Obviously, none of these examples are about the same kind of issue — the cops in Heien’s case obviously did not shoot anyone. But it does hark back to that question: what leniency do we give to our cops?

In the United States, not knowing a law is no excuse for breaking it. Should not knowing it also be an excuse for incorrectly enforcing it? Now, that’s up to the Supreme Court to decide.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Decisions Up for Debate in Today’s SCOTUS Case appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/police-decisions-debate-todays-scotus-case/feed/ 0 26197 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/crime/crimes-against-the-homeless-whos-keeping-track/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/crime/crimes-against-the-homeless-whos-keeping-track/#comments Wed, 06 Aug 2014 10:31:07 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=17399

Though homelessness is not recognized as a protected class under the Hate Crime Prevention Act (HCPA), the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) has been tracking what it considers to be hate crimes for 15 years now. The coalition has documented more than 1,437 crimes against homeless people committed by housed individuals since 1999.

The post Crimes Against the Homeless: Who’s Keeping Track? appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Though homelessness is not recognized as a protected class under the Hate Crime Prevention Act (HCPA), the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) has been tracking what it considers to be hate crimes for 15 years now. The coalition has documented more than 1,437 crimes against homeless people committed by housed individuals since 1999.

The FBI defines a hate crime as any “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” The NCH adamantly believes that targeting individuals solely because they lack a place to call home is just as serious as targeting them because of their ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.

“There is a very high prevalence of violence against homeless people. They are sought out and targeted because of who they are, and folks are being injured and attacked in large numbers,” Jerry Jones, executive director of the NCH, explained in a phone interview.

In fact, while there have only been 132 homicides in the last 15 years that qualify as hate crimes, the number of homeless related homicides is almost three times as many, totaling 375 deaths since 1999.

These attacks are believed to be motivated by the housed perpetrators’ bias against homeless people. Jones explained that the perpetrators of these crimes “view homeless people as an easy target since they’re living out on the streets,” adding, “they seem to be guided by a twisted rationale that no one will care if they get  hurt.”

With 610,042 people found homeless on any given night across the United States, and with attacks occurring in 47 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, this is quickly becoming a problem that can no longer be ignored.

Who’s Keeping Track?

One of the most disturbing elements of these crimes is the fact that they are not being recorded. No one aside from the NCH tracks the victims of this particular crime, which is primarily the reason why the Coalition is trying to amend the HCPA to include homelessness as a protected class.

“It’s part of our mission to highlight these [violent] acts,” Jones said of the National Coalition for the Homeless. “It’s an issue that we’ve dedicated a lot of time and effort to, but the government has more resources.”

If homelessness were to become a federally recognized protected class, it would require the FBI to track crimes against the homeless the same way that it tracks crimes against other protected classes. It would also show that the government acknowledges not only that there is a problem, but also the fact that these people are worth protecting.

While the NCH publishes annual reports that provide a vivid account of the crimes committed against the homeless, it does not have the resources that the federal government has at its disposal. A complete and accurate count of these crimes will not be possible until the federal government takes over the data collection process.

This is a problem because until we know the extent of the issue, fixing it is relatively impossible. From the data compiled by the NCH it is clear that homeless people frequently suffer from beatings, rape, murders, and even being lit on fire at the hands of housed perpetrators. But the question remains: is this enough to constitute the creation of a new protected class under the HCPA?

The Violence Against the Homeless Accountability Act

Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson seems to think so, introducing the Violence Against the Homeless Accountability Act (VAHA) last year. In a press release she states that “before we can solve the problem, we must understand the problem,” arguing that such legislation is needed to send the message that crimes against the homeless will not be forgotten or ignored.

Johnson is not alone in this belief either. Several states have taken it upon themselves to individually include homeless people as a protected class under their hate crime statutes. At least 11 states have passed some form of protection for the homeless as of 2012, but until homeless people are protected under federal legislation, the fight is far from over.

The Homeless Accountability Act only has a six percent chance of getting past committee in the House and only a one percent chance of being enacted. This is slightly lower than the average bill, which stems primarily from the fact that it has failed to garner support from Republicans who are opposed to any further expansion of the HCPA.

The Debate

There is a lot of trepidation about expanding the scope of existing hate crime laws as people are fearful that such an expansion will infringe on citizens’ freedom of speech and expression, criminalizing hateful “thoughts” rather than hateful acts (though the HCPA explicitly states it does not limit hateful thoughts or even hateful speech).

Another argument is that since homelessness is not an immutable characteristic like race, it does not warrant the same protection under the HCPA. Others believe that inclusion as a protected class is not necessary because existing laws are strong enough to deal with any discrimination directed toward the homeless.

Though it may be true that homelessness is not an immutable characteristic, the homeless are one of the most vulnerable groups in society, quite literally without a place to call home. They are veterans who served our country, struggling families who have had their homes foreclosed, and fellow citizens who no longer have the means or the mental capacity to support themselves.

They, of all people, deserve extra protection from senseless violence, yet current legislation has proven to be inadequate in protecting them from the violent actions of housed perpetrators. Until the homeless are protected under the federal hate crime statutes, the discriminatory violence they face will only increase and, sadly, continue to be largely ignored.

[The National Coalition for the Homeless’ Annual Report 2013]

—

Nicole Roberts (@NicoleR5901) a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Sebastian via Flicker]

Nicole Roberts

Nicole Roberts a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crimes Against the Homeless: Who’s Keeping Track? appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/crime/crimes-against-the-homeless-whos-keeping-track/feed/ 17 17399 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/tiger-selfies-nyc-men-will-snag-chicks-way/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/tiger-selfies-nyc-men-will-snag-chicks-way/#respond Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:57:50 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=18902

The New York legislature passed a bill making it illegal to take selfies with tiger -- a popular trend in the online dating profile world. Don't fret though: monkey and bear selfies are still completely legal.

The post No More Tiger Selfies, NYC Men Will Have to Snag Chicks Some Other Way appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

There are some pretty bizarre trends going around these days, and just one of the many is men posting photos of themselves with tigers on online dating sites. Why? To seem manly and brave via some kind of weird, caveman-esque mating ritual showing that they can take on any wild beast to save his damsel in distress. Alas, there is a new challenge to this practice — a New York law threatening to ban tiger selfies.

If men trying to prove their macho-manliness can no longer pose with the wild, striped felines, what will become of the Tumblr blog dedicated to featuring their photos? How will women find suitable partners on the reliable sites Tinder and OKCupid if they cannot assess he size of the tiger with which her potential mate cuddles?

State legislators in both houses have passed a bill banning people from posing for photos while touching tigers in New York State. This, along with ridding the world of large, sugary sodas, clearly top the priority list of New York politicians, as they should the lists of everyone.

Manhattan Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal explained that she introduced the legislation to increase safety at traveling circuses and fairs that allow the public to take photographs of themselves getting cozy with tigers. She did not point out, however, that there were only two big-cat attacks at traveling shows in New York over the last decade.

So no matter the size of the tiger with which you are posing, you will pay up to $500 for such a horrendous offense. If Tigger approaches you in New York, back away — yes, he LOOKS friendly, but it’s all a farce. Same with Raja — Jasmine better not consider a move to New York anytime soon.

Sorry, Jasmine, that’ll be $500

Lauren Schuster, a staffer for Rosenthal, accurately pointed out what their law is REALLY going to do: “We’re killing bros’ dreams and chances of being laid!” She couldn’t have foreseen the consequences of this law any better. Seriously, if a man can’t post pictures of himself with tigers, I can’t think of how he will score chicks. Buying them drinks just doesn’t suffice anymore.

Despite this attack on the prominent method through which men demonstrate their masculinity, there is still hope, at least according to Rosenthal. “They can still pose with bears and monkeys,” the assemblywoman said. “They just have to take big cats off their list.” Even if dating app users can still pose with monkeys and bears…come on, that’s not NEARLY as sexy and manly. It’s just not the same! How are Tinder users going to woo the love of their lives while cozying up next to a monkey? Will that be the next blog on Tumblr? Simian selfies? That is bound to attract an entirely different type of woman. I guess only time will tell.

 

No word on if lion selfies are acceptable…

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Wilma Verburg via Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No More Tiger Selfies, NYC Men Will Have to Snag Chicks Some Other Way appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/tiger-selfies-nyc-men-will-snag-chicks-way/feed/ 0 18902