Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Michelle Carter Has Been Sentenced

Michelle Carter, the 20-year-old woman who was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter after her boyfriend killed himself in 2014, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Carter encouraged her boyfriend, Conrad Roy, to kill himself via text messages. Many legal experts did not expect Carter to be convicted, and opinions on the case differ. A lot of people said she deserves more time behind bars and speculated that she received such a lenient sentence because she is a white woman. Others opposed the concept of convicting someone for their role in a second individual’s suicide.

#michellecarter judge orders she cannot profit from the crime.. no movies, no magazines, books or tv interviews for payment #WBZ

— Cheryl Fiandaca (@CherylFiandaca) August 3, 2017

However, the judge in the case granted Carter a stay of incarceration, so she will not go to prison until after her appeals have been wrapped up. Roy’s family delivered emotional statements about their son and accused Carter of pushing Roy to commit suicide so that she could take on the role of the grieving girlfriend. The case remains highly emotional and ultimately could shed light on how to deal with similar cases.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 4, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Sexual Abuse by Boarding School Teachers Went on For Decades

A report released yesterday revealed that some teachers at the elite boarding school Choate Rosemary Hall in Connecticut sexually abused their students for decades. The report names 12 teachers who abused students, including through “forced or coerced intercourse,” starting in the 1960s and continuing until the 2010s. The school failed to report the crimes to the police or take appropriate action in almost all of the cases–for example, one Spanish teacher raped a 17-year-girl in a swimming pool during a school trip to Costa Rica in 1999. He then went on to become principal at another school, where he worked until last week.

Report names 12 at Choate Rosemary Hall who allegedly abused students https://t.co/3Y1bLAQuGu pic.twitter.com/USTfSz0UGX

— Boston.com (@BostonDotCom) April 14, 2017

The prestigious school boasts alums like President John F. Kennedy and his brother Joseph. Lawyer Paul Mones, who represents sexual abuse survivors, said that the logistics of a private boarding school makes it significantly easier for abuse to happen. “They are closed systems, especially residential private schools where kids are separated from their parents,” he said.

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 RantCrush Top 5: April 14, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

All Cannabis in America coverage is written by Alexis Evans and Alec Siegel and brought to you by Law Street Media.

STATE OF WEED: WATCH

Delaware Could Legalize Recreational Marijuana Too!

November’s impressive marijuana victories seem to have lit a fire under many pro-pot lawmakers across the country. In recent months, we’ve seen more and more states draft legislation to legalize marijuana in some form. Last week, Delaware lawmakers announced they wanted in on the action, unveiling a new bill that would legalize the drug recreationally for adults 21 years and older. Lawmakers said they hope House Bill 110 will attract east coast “marijuana tourists” to the state, boosting Delaware’s economy in the process.

West Virginia Finally Warms Up to Marijuana

West Virginia, one of the few remaining states yet to legalize marijuana in any form, could soon get its toes wet with medical marijuana. After being fast-tracked to the House floor for a vote, Senate Bill 386 is scheduled for a second reading during Monday’s House session. The bill, which already passed the state’s Senate, would establish a 16-member commission to oversee production, distribution, and regulation of a state medical marijuana program. Members will need to decide on any amendments and vote quickly before the session adjourns on April 8.

Researchers Unlock Marijuana Genome

Attention cannabis aficionados: some experts believe that the marijuana industry could one day be able to emulate the wine industry. Researchers from the University of British Columbia published new findings online at PLOS One, in an article titled “Terpene Synthases from Cannabis sativa,” in which they identify 30 terpene synthase genes that contribute to diverse flavors. This could allow marijuana growers to produce more standardized products much like wine, which would allow buyers to know exactly what they are getting in terms of flavor and strength. Does this mean we can expect weed tastings in the near future?

All links are to primary sources. For more information on state laws for possessing, selling, and cultivating marijuana, click here to read “The State of Weed: Marijuana Legalization State by State.”

LAW STREET CANNABIS COVERAGE

Oregon Lawmakers Introduce Ambitious Marijuana Reform Bills

By Alexis Evans

Two Oregon lawmakers introduced an ambitious trio of bills in the U.S. Senate and House Thursday that would drastically revolutionize marijuana reform and help legitimize the cannabis industry. Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, both Democrats, are calling the project the “Path to Marijuana Reform,” and it almost seems too good to be true (keep reading to check out Law Street’s exclusive interview with Rep. Blumenauer below).

Legalizing Marijuana Hasn’t Led to More Teen Use in Washington

By Alexis Evans

Marijuana opponents frequently argue that legalizing weed would encourage underage kids to try it, which they use as a justification for why states shouldn’t adopt recreational use laws. However, a new survey from the state of Washington shows that simply isn’t the case. According to a Youth Health Survey from the state of Washington, which legalized recreational marijuana in 2012 and established dispensaries in 2014, results indicated that teen cannabis consumption hasn’t changed over the past decade.

SWAT Raids Can be Deadly, Even for People With Small Amounts of Marijuana

By Alec Siegel

Though marijuana use is rarely–if ever–fatal, possession and trafficking can be deadly. A New York Times investigation into the aggressive tactics used by SWAT teams across the U.S. revealed that a startling number of people have been killed as the result of a SWAT raid.

THREE QUESTIONS: EXCLUSIVE Q&A

Each month, the Cannabis in America team interviews influencers in the cannabis industry and gives you an exclusive look into their work, motivations, and predictions for the marijuana marketplace.

U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) has been an advocate of marijuana legalization for decades. In 1998, Oregon became the second state to legalize medical marijuana, and in 2015, it became one of the first states to legalize the drug recreationally. Now, Blumenauer is taking his fight to the federal level. In an exclusive interview with Law Street’s Alec Siegel, the congressman talks about the bipartisan Congressional Cannabis Caucus, and much more.

AS: What do you hope to achieve with the Congressional Cannabis Caucus?

EB: For the last four years we’ve steadily expanded involvement of people in Congress on a series of legislative actions designed to bring a little rationality to this equation. What we’ve tried to do is spread this out to involve more and more members. We’ve had an informal marijuana working group. By formalizing the Cannabis Caucus with bipartisan leadership and bipartisan membership, it’s another step toward normalizing the way this is treated by Congress.

AS:  What will it take to change the federal marijuana ban?

EB: Public acceptance is broad and accelerating. Ten years ago a majority of the American public did not support legal adult use. There was growing support but not as strong as one would like for medical marijuana. What’s happened in recent years is that the public has figured it out. Some have had actual experience with medical marijuana. I think this decade we’re going to see some pretty profound changes because [the ban] doesn’t work, it’s expensive, and it’s unfair.

AS: Are you concerned with how the Trump Administration will enforce the federal ban?

EB: They have not yet become allies, but I don’t think they’re going to rekindle this war against marijuana. First of all, in the nine states that voted on marijuana legalization in some form last fall, marijuana got more votes than Donald Trump. And there were millions of people who voted for both Donald Trump and marijuana. I’ll say flatly that there will never be an anti-marijuana candidate for president who will be successfully elected. It’s not good politics and it’s not good policy to try to reverse what has occurred across the country as a result of what the citizens wanted.

CANNABIS CULTURE

UK Mom Credits Marijuana With Saving Son From Cancer

By Alec Siegel

As Deryn Blackwell was dying of cancer, his mother, Callie, sought out something, anything, that could relieve his pain. Finally, after three excruciating years of watching Deryn suffer, she found a potential aid: marijuana. Find out more here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cannabis in America April 2017: Meet a Lawmaker Advocating for Marijuana Reform appeared first on Law Street.

States where medical marijuana is legal have seen drops in opioid hospitalizations and overdoses, according to a new study published in the April issue of the Drug and Alcohol Dependence journal. And despite the loosening of marijuana laws across the country, states that have legalized medical marijuana have not seen an uptick in marijuana hospitalizations. Opioids have ravaged communities across the nation, and some researchers see marijuana as a viable alternative for treating certain ailments.

In states with medical marijuana laws in place, hospitalizations for opioid dependence and abuse dropped by an average of 23 percent, according to the study. In addition, treatment for overdoses decreased by an average of 13 percent. Yuyan Shi, the study’s author, told Reuters that legalizing medical marijuana “may have reduced hospitalization related to opioid pain relievers.” But Shi cautioned that the results are “still preliminary.”

Marijuana’s potential as a replacement for opioids stands in stark contrast to comments Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a few weeks ago. “I am astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana,” he said, “so people can trade one life-wrecking dependency for another.” Pro-marijuana activists and many others are concerned that Sessions, who once said “good people don’t smoke marijuana,” will crack down on marijuana use, even in states where it is legal.

Comparing the two substances is precarious. Heroin is highly addictive–and is upending communities all over the country–while there has never been a reported marijuana overdose, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. But the DEA does classify both heroin and marijuana as Schedule I substances.

Despite Sessions’ fear mongering and the federal illegality of marijuana, doctors sometimes prescribe or recommend medical marijuana to patients as a substitute for treating side effects from certain diseases, in lieu of Vicodin or Oxycontin, two powerful opioids. Prescription pain medications or other opioids like heroin kill 91 Americans each day.

Roughly 60 percent of Americans live in an area–one of 28 states or D.C.–where medical marijuana is legal, and researchers are increasingly examining the drug’s medical utility. A report in January from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that marijuana does in fact have therapeutic properties. Still, the Drug and Alcohol Dependence study came to a restrained conclusion: “future investigation is needed to explore the causal pathways of these findings.”

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 Study: Fewer Opioid-Related Hospitalizations in States Where Medical Pot is Legal appeared first on Law Street.

Researchers have recently seen a sharp increase in babies–particularly babies born in rural areas–with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS). This means that the babies are essentially born addicted to the drugs that their mothers used when pregnant. This phenomenon is just yet another depressing side effect of the sharp increase in the number of people addicted to opioids in the United States.

According to the study, which was published online earlier this week in JAMA Pediatrics, the increase of babies born with NAS in rural areas rose dramatically between 2004 and 2013. During that time period in rural areas, the incidences of NAS increased from 1.2 cases per 1,000 hospital births to 7.5 cases per 1,000 hospital births. It’s important to note that cases in cities rose as well, just not as sharply. In cities, there were 1.4 cases per 1,000 hospital births in 2004, and 4.8 cases per 1,000 hospital births in 2013. There was also some variability from state to state. Hawaii saw the lowest rate, at .7 cases per 1,000 births. West Virginia saw the highest, with 33.4 cases per 1,000 births. The researchers did acknowledge that the increase in cases could also come from the fact that there’s increased recognition of the symptoms, and better reporting metrics than there used to be.

But these numbers aren’t that surprising if you’ve paid attention to the nationwide opioid crisis. Rural areas have been particularly hard hit. Dr. Joshua Brown, a researcher at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy in Gainesville, told Business Insider:

Substance abuse is generally higher in rural communities, where an inability to afford or access care as well as the stigma associated with addiction may mean fewer mothers get the help they need to stop using heroin or abusing prescription painkillers during pregnancy.

President Barack Obama has recently taken some action to try to ameliorate the opioid crisis. The 21st Century Cures Act was recently passed by Congress and signed by Obama, and designates a significant amount of money specifically to fighting the opioid epidemic. This could be a boon for rural communities struggling with addiction, but as shown by recent evidence, there’s still a lot of work to be done.

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 America’s Drug War: Sharp Increase in Babies Born Addicted to Opioids appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Paul Ryan Renominated as Speaker of the House

Yesterday, House Republicans voted to renominate Paul Ryan as House Speaker. After the unanimous vote, Ryan, who previously had run-ins with President-elect Donald Trump during the campaign, emphasized unity in the Republican Party. He became speaker after John Boehner resigned at the end of last year, so this would be his first full term holding the position. The next step for Ryan is to win the vote in early January.

It is a tremendous honor to be nominated by my colleagues to serve as Speaker of the House. Now it’s time to go big. pic.twitter.com/ot7fqYEGun

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) November 15, 2016

“Welcome to the dawn of a new, unified Republican government,” Mr. Ryan told reporters Tuesday.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Thousands are homeless in West Virginia this week after torrential flooding that left at least 23 dead. Clay, Fayette, Greenbrier, Jackson, Kanawha, Monroe, Nicholas, Pocahontas, Roane, Summers and Webster counties were all damaged in the floods. Bodies were found days after the rains began, having been dragged miles from their homes by the rushing water. But for West Virginia, the reconstruction won’t just be physical, it will be emotional too.

Let’s start with the massive need for rebuilding–FEMA has already approved over $18 million in individual assistance for medical and housing support, but this is just the beginning of the disaster relief process. FEMA began by coordinating disaster centers and donation centers for those who lost their homes to the flooding but it will now need to provide temporary housing and unemployment benefits, assist with home repair, and provide low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses. With over 4,000 flood victims registered to date, FEMA is looking at years worth of construction and economic assistance. If a similar natural disaster strikes other communities this summer, FEMA’s budget will be stretched thin. In the 2016 financial year, FEMA was granted $7.37 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund, a sum that seems somewhat less significant once we factor in that the Disaster Relief Fund is used not only for disasters that occur in 2016 but for the costs of past disasters as well, including Hurricane Sandy. West Virginia’s reconstruction has only just begun and there is no way to fix a deadline for when it will end.

But beyond the physical reconstruction, there is also a need for emotional support. In the wake of natural disasters, communities are more vulnerable to a rise in mental health issues. Consider that in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, a survey of 392 low income parents affected by the storm found that the prevalence of serious probable mental illness doubled and that nearly half the participants studied exhibited probable PTSD. The American Psychological Association operates the Disaster Resource Network, a group of approximately 2,500 licensed psychologists who work with the Red Cross to integrate mental health into disaster preparedness training, but with so many communities at risk, it is difficult to reach every town that is vulnerable.

FEMA’S Crisis Counseling Program (CCP) provides funding for a variety of counseling services, including both individual and group counseling, but there is no guarantee that the counselors provided will be able to work with victims of disaster indefinitely. Building trust and making progress with a counselor can take months or years, and with so few qualified counselors available to work in disaster areas, those who cannot seek counseling on their own dime may never return to counseling once the CCP grant runs out. In West Virginia, an economically disadvantaged state with one of the highest rates of unemployment in the nation, the likelihood of most flood victims being able to attend counseling without a CCP grant is almost nonexistent.

In a nation where communities are constantly grappling with floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires, FEMA’s work is never done. The agency has worked to transform itself, in a post-Katrina world, into an effective disaster relief agency that can anticipate every need of a community in its darkest hour. Yet FEMA is not beholden to stay in the community forever–it will rebuild and aid as much as it can, a process that may take years, but that does not undercut the fact that FEMA relief is only temporary.

The deeper effects on the community, particularly the scars left by grief and PTSD, last long after the aid money has run out. Organizations like Counselors without Borders are doing critical work in disaster scenarios but they do not have the resources or staff to reach every victim of every crisis. Individuals will play the greatest role in creating positive mental health in disaster communities. Trained counselors and psychologists can donate their time, volunteers can work on emergency and suicide hotlines, school administrators can strive to create safe spaces for students–this type of holistic, community-based dedication to protecting mental health can truly rebuild a town after it has been destroyed. However, when flood victims are focused on rebuilding their homes and businesses, these efforts can fall by the wayside—why focus on mental health when poor physical health is the greater threat to a flood victim’s immediate well-being? How can a community choose to spend money on group counseling for a family instead of spending that grant on rebuilding that family’s home? This is our next great challenge when dealing with natural disasters: making mental health as important as bricks and mortar.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Needed: Mental Healthcare in the Aftermath of a Disaster appeared first on Law Street.

For all you milk lovers out there, West Virginia may just be the new place to visit, vacation in, or even move to after this week’s big milk decision. That’s right, you heard me! Raw milk will soon be more accessible in the state of West Virginia for the first time in almost four decades.

Senate Bill 387 was signed by Governor Earl Ray Tomblin on March 3 and will go into effect 90 days later. This bill, which is a newer draft of a bill that failed to pass last year,  specifically legalizes “herd sharing,” or the trading of animals for their milk. The most recent version of the bill also requires the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Resources to work together to create rules that will regulate the distribution and consumption of raw milk, making it more passable. Now, don’t be too quick to celebrate, because the selling of raw milk in West Virginia is still illegal, but it will be easier to get access to raw milk on farms after signing liability waivers.

So, what does this mean for your milk drinking habits? Well, let’s take a second to break down raw milk for those of you who aren’t familiar with this delicacy. Simply put, raw milk is any milk that has not been pasteurized to kill bacteria. It’s a product that has recently been in the spotlight for controversy surrounding its potential health benefits and drawbacks.

It seems like scientists are still in the process of making a judgment on whether raw milk actually is better for you than regular milk, or this whole hypothesis is just a sham. Proponents of the natural movement cite several potential benefits of un-pasteurized milk over your everyday grocery store carton. These benefits include better taste, potential health and allergy benefits, and the freedom argument–we should be able to drink whatever milk we want to drink! On the other side of the issue, raw milk haters claim that raw milk really doesn’t have any benefits relative to pasteurized milk and it is significantly more risky to drink. The CDC falls on that side of the debate, noting “The risks of drinking raw milk outweigh any possible benefits.”

But, regardless of these risk factors, West Virginia has given raw milk the benefit of the doubt! The irony in all this? In the legislature’s celebration after passing this hip new bill, they passed around a glass of milk (unpasteurized, of course) for the entire group to try. A few hours later, several of the delegates who had partaken in the milk festivities became sick with some kind of stomach bug that may or may not be linked to the milk consumption.

Several of the lawmakers claim that they don’t think it was the milk that did them in, but, whatever it was, it certainly does not look good.

The milk enthusiast that day, Representative Scott Cadle, was pushing the other members of the legislative body to “live dangerously” and try the milk. Later that day, after the illness was running rampant, he defended the milk to the Charleston Gazette-Mail, which he did not think was the main cause of illness that day:

With that many people around and that close quarters and in that air and environment, I just call it a big germ. All that Capitol is is a big germ.

It’s unclear whether or not this milk was the source, but pretty much all of the legislators claim that it definitely was not. Is that all just a facade to promote the now-legal raw milk? Who knows.

So, drink up (at your own risk) America. And make sure to click here to learn more about raw milk in your state and to stay updated on all of the rawest raw milk happenings this country has to offer.

To learn more, read: What’s the Deal with Raw Milk?

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 Legalize Milk? appeared first on Law Street.

For the second time since 2015, West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) vetoed a proposal to allow people 21 and older to carry hidden guns without permits or training.

The West Virginia House voted 64-33 less than 24 hours after the governor’s decision to override the bill. It then went to the Senate, where in a 23-11 vote Saturday, the Senate voted to override the veto as well.

Permitless concealed carry coming to West Virginia after legislature overrides governor’s veto https://t.co/sJ118RaOgu

— The Washington Times (@wtimesnation) March 7, 2016

The law will go into effect in 90 days.

House Bill 4145 will get rid of the state’s current permit and training program for citizens carrying concealed weapons in West Virginia for anyone 21 and older. However, permits will still be required for those between 18-21.

According to the bill, it “establish[es] that criminal penalties for carrying a concealed deadly weapon without state license or other lawful authorization apply only to persons under twenty-one years of age and prohibited persons.”

Those excluded from the rule include those with diagnosed substance-abuse problems, multiple alcohol-related driving infractions, alcohol addiction, or serious criminal records.

Gov. Tomblin released this statement after his veto:

West Virginia’s law enforcement officers have dedicated their lives to keeping us safe and helping us in times of need, and it’s disheartening that the members of the Legislature have chosen not to stand with these brave men and women – putting their safety and the safety of West Virginians at risk. It’s unfortunate that the concerns of officers from every law enforcement branch in the state, including the West Virginia State Police and university campus police officers, have been ignored by today’s action.

What made this veto different than the previous one in 2015 is that the legislature had more time in order to override the governor’s decision. In West Virginia, it only takes a simple majority to override vetoes, thus making it easier with ample time.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) asked the legislature to reconsider swiftly following the governor’s decision.

It is already legal in West Virginia to carry a gun openly, like in a holster, without a permit. This bill will just make concealed weapon carry legal without a permit for citizens over 21.

Citizens ages 18-20 would need to participate in a training program involving live firing in order to get a permit.

There are a handful of other states that do not require permits.

According to The Washington Post, “Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Wyoming and Vermont don’t require a permit at all for concealed carry in public. Vermont has never had such a requirement; Alaska went permit-free in 2003; Arizona in 2010; Wyoming in 2011 (limited to residents); and Arkansas in 2013.”

Some of these programs do away with background checks, which are highly favored by Americans.

In a Quinnipiac poll released in 2014, it found that 92 percent of Americans surveyed favored background checks for all gun buyers. In 2013 the number was 89 percent.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post West Virginia Legislature Overrides Veto Allowing Permitless Concealed Carry appeared first on Law Street.

In February 2015, Teach for America was invited to West Virginia schools for the first time. The first Teach for America educators are slated to arrive in West Virginia next August but only 15 educators will be stationed in the state, and Teach for America only plans to expand that number to 30-35 teachers in the next five years. Several county officials, teachers unions and education advocates have opposed the introduction of Teach for America, claiming that they do not need or want under-qualified teachers.

Despite this backlash, the West Virginia education system is in dire need of educators and is willing to take on Teach for America educators. West Virginia’s teacher salaries are among the lowest in the nation, and installing Teach for America recruits is considered by some to be the cost-efficient alternative to raising teacher pay. However, critics are concerned that cutting costs may also result in cutting quality in the classroom. Read on for a look at Teach for America’s current training program for new teachers and how it is implemented in new locales.

What is Teach for America?

Teach for America (TFA) founder Wendy Kopp began the project as a senior thesis at Princeton University in 1989. Low-income schools faced a debilitating teacher shortage and student outcomes had remained stagnant for several years. In 1989, Knopp launched recruitment programs at 100 universities and began funneling college graduates trained by TFA into the American school system.

Since then, TFA has expanded to 52 regions across the country and has an average of over 40,000 applicants every year. TFA provides educators in the most low-income and low-performing school districts in the country, which have difficulty attracting qualified teachers. The recruits that TFA introduces to the school system are tasked with closing the achievement gap between students from different socioeconomic and racial backgrounds. According to the TFA official website, a majority of school principals are satisfied with the commitment of TFA educators and would gladly hire from TFA again in the future. The statistics on the official website suggest that TFA teachers perform at the same level, if not higher, than their colleagues who were trained through traditional education programs. Despite these positive reports, there has been a growing backlash against TFA for not training teachers for the challenges they will meet in their classroom.

Teach for America Training

TFA usually recruits college graduates (often without education degrees) to teach in the most high-need school districts across the nation. Recruits undergo a five-to-seven week training course the summer before they begin their two year contract at a given school. According to TFA’s website, there are five components to the summer institute: teaching summer school, receiving observations and feedback, rehearsals and reflections on the classroom experience, curriculum instruction, and lesson-planning clinics. The training course is built on the assumption that recruits will learn quickly and embrace challenges. After the summer institute, a five day regional induction/orientation period introduces recruits to the town in which they will be working, connecting them with fellow educators and community members. Recruits rely heavily on mentors both within the school system and from the TFA regional network to aid them in the transition.

Concerns with the TFA Training 

TFA has come under fire over the past several years for how little material the summer institute covers. In an essay for The Washington Post, Professor Jack Schneider summed up the problematic nature of this training:

Even filling every moment of the day as they do, there simply isn’t enough time in five weeks to prepare novices for the classroom.  And to make matters more complicated, TFA corps members are often placed in schools where they are least qualified to be.

TFA subscribes to a philosophy of “learning by doing,” wherein teachers adapt to the needs of their classroom in real time. TFA cites the Mathematica Policy Research group’s 2004 report that students taught by TFA recruits topped their peers in math and matched them in reading as evidence that this strategy works. However, a 2010 review of independent research by Professors Julian Vasquez Heilig (University of Texas at Austin) and Dr. Su Jin Jez (California State University, Sacramento) revealed that students taught by TFA recruits perform at significantly lower levels than their peers taught by credentialed beginning teachers. This report found that

Teach for America recruits start at a disadvantage. After several years, they perform equal to or better than their peers, but they often leave the profession before the benefits of their experience can make an impact in the classroom. School districts must spend more money on recruiting as a result of Teach for America’s churn. In addition, the organization charges school districts an average of $2,500 for each teacher it provides, and districts spend extra money to train teachers once they arrive.

One of the largest problems with TFA recruits is that they only sign on for two-year periods. Fortunately, many TFA recruits have begun to stay longer than their two-year commitment. A 2011 study found that 60.5 percent of TFA teachers continue as public school teachers beyond their initial two-year commitment. However, remaining within the public school system is not equivalent to staying in the same teaching position. The same study found that 56.4 percent of TFA recruits leave their initial posting after two years and that after five years, only 14.8 percent of recruits continue to teach at the same low-income school to which they were originally assigned. TFA recruits may develop a love for teaching but that doesn’t mean they stay in the schools where their skills are most needed.

Teach for America in West Virginia

The TFA training program will encounter a new set of hurdles upon its implementation in West Virginia. As the program has not operated in the state before, and is only sending a minimal cadre of teachers to work there, the mentoring network for TFA recruits will be less engrained. One big concern is that it will be difficult to hold an effective regional orientation if the organizers themselves are only just adjusting to the West Virginian environment. TFA has operated in Appalachia for several years, but its activities have been confined to Kentucky–specifically to rural eastern Kentucky. TFA recruited a substantially larger set of teachers in Kentucky, bringing in 30 a year since 2011. The Kentucky program is well-established, with connections to the public school system and a set of TFA alumni who can serve as advisers for incoming TFA recruits in the region. TFA is hoping that West Virginia will parallel the Kentucky program, creating a broader Appalachian success story, but the nonprofit’s proposed efforts in West Virginia are currently so minor that it will be difficult for TFA recruits to make any sort of significant impact in the community.

Teach for America: Are there alternatives?

Teach for America is often considered the only successful program of its kind in the American educational system. Despite its inefficiencies, there is no nationally integrated program that attracts as many college graduates as TFA does. This may change in the coming months, due to a host of educational grants enacted this fall. In November, the Gates Foundation announced that it will be funneling $34 million in grants to five teacher education and preparation centers across the nation. Vicki Phillips, director of College Ready Education at the Gates Foundation, said that

We know that having an excellent teacher is critical to a student’s success, but there is still much to learn about how to best prepare teacher-candidates to be successful in the classroom. We’re excited to fund these new Teacher Preparation Transformation Centers so that together, we can better understand which practices are the most effective in preparing new teachers.

Funding these teacher preparation systems will create a new supply of credentialed teachers for K-12 education, so the most needy schools in America will have access to more qualified candidates and will not be as reliant on TFA recruits. In addition, the Harvard Graduate School of Teaching announced a brand new pilot program that will be launched next year called the Harvard Teaching Fellows, which is marketed as an alternative to TFA. The Harvard program plans to:

Engage Harvard students in the second semester of their senior year, with selected students taking a foundational course in the spring and remaining at Harvard for a summer-long training program following Commencement. In September, they will be deployed to partner school networks and districts where they will teach in a classroom, though with only a 60 percent workload. Fellows will then come back to Cambridge for a second summer of professional development for additional support before they return to classrooms. Upon a second year of teaching and program completion, fellows will continue to have support and connections to Harvard Teaching Fellows for the next few years of their careers.

After student protests against TFA in 2014, Harvard has been moving away from connecting its graduates with the organization. The Harvard Teaching Fellows program is only in its infancy, but the fact that it was designed specifically to address the shortcomings of TFA gives it a certain cachet in the education world. School districts like those in West Virginia may prefer to receive teachers from these preparation centers in the coming years rather than the handful of TFA recruits they are currently relying on. More efficient and comprehensive training for teachers could transform school districts across the country to the point that TFA may become less prevalent. In lieu of reforming TFA, the education sector may prefer to phase the program out entirely, replacing TFA recruits with teachers who graduated from these newly funded preparation centers.

Conclusion

Teach for America began twenty-five years ago with the best of intentions: connecting educated and passionate young people with students in dire need of educators and mentors. However, educators are concerned that the lack of training that these teachers receive may leave their students struggling in the classroom and the brief nature of their contract leaves school administrators scrambling to find replacements every two years. The introduction of new teacher preparation centers may solve the shortcomings of the Teach for America training process, but for now, Teach for America is the only organization sending a steady stream of teachers into the nation’s most desperate schools. Parents and educational professionals in West Virginia are only just opening their doors to Teach for America, but with that invitation, they also may be welcoming a lower caliber of teacher.

Resources 

Primary

TFA: Summer Training

TFA: Our History

TFA: On The Record

Additional

Charleston Gazette-Mail: Teach for America Still Coming to W.Va, but Impact May be Limited

Metro News West Virginia: Why WV needs Teach for America

Washington Post: Teach for America’s “Dirty Little Secret”

Washington Post: A New Look at Teach for America

Harvard Magazine: Is Teach for America Good for America?

The Gates Foundation: Gates Foundation Awards Over $34 Million in Grants to Help Improve Teacher Preparation Programs

The Harvard Crimson: To Teach A Teacher: Harvard’s Alternative to Teach for America

Education Week: TFA Teachers: How Long Do They Teach? Why Do They Leave?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Teach for America Expands to West Virginia: Potential Pitfalls and Alternatives appeared first on Law Street.

Police in West Virginia received a frantic call last week with a woman in the background saying, “He pulled a gun on me! He was going to kill me!” The woman, who wants to be known only as “Heather,” spoke to the police after a struggle with an attacker who tried to rape her and held a gun to her chest. Luckily Heather was able to fight back to the point where the gunman set down his weapon. She then grabbed ahold of it and fired the gun, killing him. Heather ran out of the house and found a neighbor who called 911 for her. The neighbor said she “had to defend herself,” and she had “cuts and stuff all over her.” Heather made it out of the fight with just a broken vertebra and a separated shoulder. Now, police believe she may have killed an unknown serial killer, and saved countless lives in the process.

Heather’s story was understandably traumatic. In her own words, she stated the gunman asked her: “live or die?” and started to choke her. “When he strangled me, I grabbed my rake, and when he laid the gun down to get the rake out of my hands, I shot him,” she said. “I grabbed the gun and shot behind me.” Police identified the man as 45-year-old Neal Falls. Inside Falls’ car detectives found a machete, axes, knives, a shovel, a sledgehammer, bleach, plastic trash bags, bulletproof vests, and four sets of handcuffs. Heather met Falls through an escort section of backpage.com and after authorities saw what they called Falls’ “kill kit” and Oregon license plate, this led them to wonder if he could be connected to other unsolved cases involving the murder of escorts. Police are now investigating if he was linked with the disappearance of nine women across Ohio, Illinois, and Nevada. In 2005 Falls lived in Las Vegas, the same year four women went missing and were later found dead. Outside of Las Vegas, evidence found with the dismembered bodies was similar to an item found in Fall’s car.

Man slain in West Virginia may have been a serial killer, police say: http://t.co/DrvtvJbnRj pic.twitter.com/L1T2jF2Nb1

— NBC10 Philadelphia (@NBCPhiladelphia) July 27, 2015

Police find ‘kill kit’ in trunk of Neal Falls’ car, suspected serial killer. More: http://t.co/NeqlPrjbH4 pic.twitter.com/fFGOGXtXZk

— CNN Tonight (@CNNTonight) July 28, 2015

All the missing women were escorts, most of whom advertised online. Police said Falls also carried a list with the age and phone numbers of about 10 women who were also escorts in West Virginia. The listed women are all alive and have not had any previous contact with Falls, according to Charleston Police Department Chief of Detectives Steve Cooper.

However, given the damning evidence, police do not believe this was Falls’ first violent crime. “It’s likely that Mr. Falls is a serial killer,” said Cooper. “I believe she saved lives by shooting Mr. Falls, based on what he did to her and based on the items found in his car.” Heather stated, “I knew he was there to kill me…I could tell he had already done something because he said he was going to prison for a long time.” Fall’s former landlord, who wants to be identified as “Pauline,” stated that he stayed at her house in 2010, but she evicted him after only one year because his strange behavior made her feel uncomfortable. Pauline told KVAL:

The first thing that he did that was a little odd was that he immediately changed the deadbolt to his own room so that only he had a key. He said he had guns and weapons and that he was a security guard….Little creepy, very tightly lipped and not a chummy guy, definitely not a chummy guy. Somebody who doesn’t like to be exposed.

Heather’s case has been closed and she is not being charged for killing Falls because it was considered an act of self-defense. Authorities are now focused on finding out if Falls was related to other crimes in the past. Police in West Virginia have asked the FBI for help, and are entering Falls’ name into a national DNA database to see if they can find any kind of connection. If Heather did in fact kill a serial killer, it may help solve a number of cold cases, and prevent Falls’ future crimes.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did a West Virginia Woman Unknowingly Kill a Serial Killer? appeared first on Law Street.

Crime and weird news ruled the news last week. A new interactive map from writer Law Street’s crime editor Kevin Rizzo made waves across the internet as it allows you to visualize where crime in the United States is getting better or worse. Definitely check that out! The number two story, from Anneliese Mahoney, brings yoga pants back into the news as Montana lawmakers continue their quest to outlaw the comfortable clothing in public spaces. And finally the third most popular post came from writer Marisa Mostek with her weekly look at the dumbest laws across the country, this time focusing in on the Virginias and the Carolinas. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Interactive Crime Map: Is Your City Getting Safer or More Dangerous?

As reported in Law Street’s comprehensive annual crime rankings, Crime in America 2015, violent crime across the United States continued its downward trend according to the latest figures reported by the FBI. Curious to know how your hometown stacks up against the rest of the country? Check out the interactive map below for yourself to see if your city is getting safer or more dangerous according to the latest data. Read full article here.

#2 Just Relax: Montana Lawmaker Attempts to Ban Yoga Pants

A proposed bill that would ban yoga pants in Montana has been tabled, eliciting joy from practitioners, women who like to be comfy, and rational human beings everywhere. If you’ve never worn yoga pants before (or their closely related cousin the leggings) they’re basically like wearing a hug on your legs. But not everyone is that happy with yoga pants, because they tend to conform to our bodies, apparently rendering them a scourge to society that needs to be outlawed. Read full article here.

#3 Dumbest Laws in the United States: The Virginias and the Carolinas

This week, the dumb laws blog will focus on two sets of neighboring states: Virginia and West Virginia and North and South Carolina. What do railroad companies and Sundays have in common? South Carolina has dumb laws pertaining to both seemingly unrelated things, as it turns out. On Sundays in South Carolina, you won’t be able to go dancing, as dance halls may not operate on that day of the week. Also on Sundays in South Carolina, you cannot do any work. It is the day of rest after all. If you wish to spend your day off playing an instrument, make sure you buy one before Sunday, as they are banned from being sold then. It makes sense, if you think about it–since work on Sunday is prohibited, who would be working at the musical instrument store? Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

This week, the dumb laws blog will focus on two sets of neighboring states: Virginia and West Virginia and North and South Carolina.

What do railroad companies and Sundays have in common? South Carolina has dumb laws pertaining to both seemingly unrelated things, as it turns out. On Sundays in South Carolina, you won’t be able to go dancing, as dance halls may not operate on that day of the week. Also on Sundays in South Carolina, you cannot do any work. It is the day of rest after all. If you wish to spend your day off playing an instrument, make sure you buy one before Sunday, as they are banned from being sold then. It makes sense, if you think about it–since work on Sunday is prohibited, who would be working at the musical instrument store?

There is a surprisingly large number of laws dedicated to the regulation of railroads in the Palmetto state. In some cases there, railroad companies may be held liable for scaring horses, so hopefully conductors steer clear of skittish steeds. That may be a difficult feat, however, considering that by law, railroads must exist in towns of more than 500 people. Men also must be 100 percent sure about marriage before popping the question, because if an unmarried man promises to wed an unmarried woman, they legally must follow through.

South Carolina’s neighbor to the north has some pretty dumb laws as well. If you can somehow get around federal and state laws prohibiting you from possessing illegal substances, you must pay taxes on them in North Carolina. Yes, I’m sure that everyone with drugs in that state will make that fact known and pay taxes on them. Logical, North Carolina, so logical. Speaking of taxes, a three dollar tax must be paid on all white goods sold. Perhaps that includes sugar, white shirts, milk, you name it. If I ever buy something in North Carolina I’ll definitely stick to colored things.

Bingo in the Tar Heel state must have gotten a bit out of hand in the past, as now there is a law dictating that the game may not last over five hours unless it is held at a fair. Furthermore, serving alcohol at bingo games is strictly prohibited. Residents also take meetings very, very seriously. Even if one is held on Halloween, organizations may not hold their meetings while the members present are in costume.

Virginia cops must have a difficult time deciphering if someone is speeding or not, as radar detectors are illegal there. And even those in a consensual relationship, no matter how long they’ve been in it, cannot have sex by Virginia law, which limits sexual relations to married couples. Even married couples, however, are prevented from having oral or anal sex.

Hunting laws in Virginia are strict when it comes to every animal, stating that none except raccoons may be hunted on Sunday. Hunters have to cancel their raccoon hunting trip if they occur late at night, as hunting the furry bandits is only legal until 2:00 a.m. It’s good that Virginia law takes serious measures to prevent kids potentially drowning in private pools, but this state takes it to the extreme. In the city of Frederick, any pool owner risks a $2,500 fine for not closing the gate to the pool when they finish swimming in it.

I’m not entirely sure why someone would WANT to own a skunk as a pet, but doing so is illegal in Prince William County, Virginia, just in case. Another strange law there is one banning swearing about someone else in his or her presence. Hey, maybe that area of Virginia just wants people to be nice to each other.

West Virginia had many stupid laws prior to 2010, when a good portion of them were repealed. These repealed laws include ones fining people who wear hats inside theaters and individuals who commit adultery. Also repealed was a law stating that any “unmarried couple who live together and ‘lewdly associate’ with one another may face up to a year in prison.”

As far as current stupid laws go, West Virginia still has plenty. For example, just like Virginia, West Virginia has a law pertaining to swearing. There, if you swear in public, you will be fined one dollar. Also, if you are feeling hungry and see some roadkill that looks tasty, go ahead and take it home for dinner. Doing so is completely legal in West Virginia.

Phew, so many stupid laws, so little time. On to the next part of the United States!

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 Dumbest Laws in the United States: The Virginias and the Carolinas appeared first on Law Street.

Saira Blair is an 18-year-old West Virginia University freshman majoring in economics. She’s also believed to be the youngest elected lawmaker in the United States.

At 17, Blair actually beat a 66-year-old Republican incumbent in a primary, and on Tuesday she beat a 44-year-old Attorney, Democrat Layne Diehl. She will represent a district of just under 20,000 people located in the West Virginia panhandle, close to Maryland, as one of 100 members of the Virginia House of Delegates.

Since Blair won, I’ve seen an interesting mix of reactions, ranging from impressed to disgusted. I want to address those, but first I feel the need to point out that I probably disagree with Blair on every fundamental issue. From what I’ve seen of her platform, she is extremely fiscally conservative, in favor of Voter ID laws, pro-life, pro-gun, and opposed to gay marriage. I don’t think I agree with her on anything, but that does not stop me from being proud and impressed by this young woman.

The idea of democracy is that we choose who best represents us. If I were a voter in Blair’s district, I probably wouldn’t have voted for her because she does not represent me. But it’s hard to fault those who did. She may be young and naive, I don’t know her. But I have a hard time buying that her age automatically disqualifies her from being representative of the people of her district.

She’s legally an adult. Barely, but she is. Which means that she could just as easily be at war, fighting for this nation. We have multiple members of Congress who are in their early thirties; the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, 30-year-old Congresswoman-elect Elise Stefanik, just won on Tuesday in upstate New York. I think it’s difficult to make a cut-off that prescribes how young is too young. Would I have been comfortable representing people at 18? No, probably not. But that’s not to say that there’s a magical day when everyone becomes mature enough to be in that kind of position.

She may be young, and who knows, she could be pretty naive. There’s also something to be said for the fact that her father is a State Senator and he’s probably had a strong influence on her.

Does that make her less qualified than someone old and cynical? God knows that our normal bevy of older, male politicians certainly have many faults. While I don’t agree with Blair’s perspective, it’s almost certainly going to be unique. And who’s to say that it won’t be representative of those who voted to elect her. I can’t imagine that she’s automatically under-qualified for office simply because of her age, when we consistently have elected officials who have affairs, are indicted for various kinds of fraud, and the like. With regard to the fact that she comes from a political family…well that’s not a particularly original criticism either. While she might not be the most qualified candidate, it’s her prerogative to run, and if the voters truly feel that she is a good representation of their beliefs, I don’t see how it’s any different than any other elected official.

I applaud Blair’s tenacity, and while I certainly would not have voted for her, that’s purely because of her politics. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, fewer than five percent of state legislators are under 30; and women in general make up just 24 percent of state legislators. If for no other reason than the fact that Blair has the opportunity to be an excellent role model, and proof that both women and young people have a rightful place being represented in our government, I applaud her.

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 Saira Blair Youngest Elected Official in America: Snaps for Her appeared first on Law Street.

By now, it is not unusual to hear stories of states trying to circumvent Roe v. Wade by closing medical facilities that conduct abortions, or imposing laws that restrict the amount window for a woman to get an abortion. But it seems like recently states have been looking for even more out-of-the-box ways to restrict access to this service. Let’s take a look at the four newest bills presented to state legislatures, and what’s wrong with each of them.

1. Making women wait 72 hours to get an abortion

New bills in Missouri would require women to wait 72 hours after deciding to have an abortion to actually get one. In some states, there is a 24-hour waiting period, but Missouri would be the first to extend that by two full days. There would be no exceptions for cases of rape.

There really isn’t an explanation for this law besides the fact it stalls women looking for an abortion, and may provide an opportunity to talk them out of it. By making women wait three days after deciding to have the procedure, and actually going through with it, she may feel pressured into changing her mind. And without exceptions to the law, women who have been raped or face medical emergencies are put in a dangerous situation.

2. Letting women sue their doctors up to 10 years after their abortion if they regret having it

In Iowa, a bill has been introduced that would allow women to sue their abortion provider long after the abortion has taken place. The reason is not because of medical malpractice, lack of information, or the procedure was done incorrectly, but because they regret their abortions.  Women would have up to 10 years to sue their doctor after having the procedure. Women would be allowed to sue for compensation because of emotional distress. Even women who sign a consent form for the procedure would be eligible to sue their doctors if they think more information about alternatives, or potential dangers from abortions could have been provided to them.

Some women do regret the abortions they have, but that isn’t the fault of the doctor. If a woman is given accurate information about the procedure, signs consent forms, and the doctor does the procedure correctly, why would he or she be held responsible for emotional damage afterward? A doctor is supposed to inform a patient of her options, and should not be held accountable for someone’s regret, no matter how painful, down the road.

3. Make sure not just one, but both parents of an underage girl seeking an abortion are notified

Also in Missouri, there is a new bill that would require not one, but both parents of a girl seeking an abortion to be notified before the procedure take place. Currently, at least one parent of a minor is notified before a girl can have an abortion, but this law goes beyond that. It presents a number of problems, among them being children who may not know both of their parents, but be restricted from receiving an abortion because of this legislation. Additionally, young women may choose to cross state lines or have riskier abortions if they think their parents won’t find out. While the bill does include exceptions for parents who have been convicted of sexual abuse of the child, or if the courts had previously terminated their rights, it doesn’t include any exceptions for medical emergencies. So, if a parent were out of town, or just not a part of the girl’s life, her access to abortion would be cut off.

Parental notification has been contentious throughout the abortion debate because it concerns people who are underage. But most states have adequate parental notification laws with just one parent- adding this law serves as nothing but a hinderance and waste of time for women looking to get an abortion.

4. Restrict abortions to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy

West Virginia has been the most upfront in their aim to restrict access to abortion- by trying to limit them to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Doctors who perform abortions after this time period could be fined up to $5000, and face between 1 to 5 years of jail time. As a reminder for everyone- Roe v. Wade (the Supreme Court decision that settled this decades ago) said that women are able to have abortions until the pregnancy is “viable,” and went on to say that 24 weeks into pregnancy is the earliest a child is viable. Simple math shows us that West Virginia is at least four weeks short with this bill.

Perhaps the most troubling part of each of these bills is the way the people who introduce them try to cover their true intentions. Rather than just saying, “I’m against abortion and trying to restrict it,” lawmakers bring in pleas for “family values,” and perhaps most insulting, by insinuating a woman who wants an abortion isn’t capable of making the decision to get one without a plethora of “help” from lawmakers in her state. State legislatures are allowed to pass laws for the betterment of that state, but it’s hard to take some of these laws seriously when they were so obviously written to restrict access to abortion.

[Slate] [RH: West Virginia] [Iowa Bill] [RH: Missouri 1] [RH: Missouri 2]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [ProgressOhio via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 4 New Laws Restricting Women’s Access to Abortions appeared first on Law Street.

As technological advances make our lives easier, will our laws need to change to keep up with the times? That is the question that tech fans are asking after a run-in between a California woman named Cecelia Abadie and the police. Abadie was wearing one of the newest innovations in tech trends: Google Glass.

The idea behind Google Glass is simple. It’s sort of like a smart phone, but completely hands-free, and it communicates with the wearer through motions and voice commands. While Google Glass currently cannot be worn in lieu of prescription glasses, developers are hoping to add an ability to contain a prescription in coming years. Applications available on Google Glass include video capture and streaming, Google Maps, Gmail, Evernote, and The New York Times, among others. More applications are expected to be released as the technology becomes more mainstream and affordable.

Currently, Google Glass is not fully available the public, but for those in the tech industry, such as testers or developers, an “Explorer Addition” is available for $1,500.

Abadie, 44, from Temecula, California, was driving down a San Diego Highway when she was pulled over for speeding. While writing up her ticket, the officer noticed that she was wearing Google Glass and cited her for distracted driving. California Vehicle Code 27602 states that it is illegal to, “”drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.” According to California law, the mandatory minimum fine is $162.

Abadie claims that the glasses were turned off at the time of her arrest. The cop cited her because the monitor was in her view and because Google Glass has a small square in the top right corner that could block a person’s view. After returning home, she posted a photo of the ticket she received to some of her online profiles. Much of the feedback that she received encouraged her to take the ticket to court and fight it. She says she believes that whether or not the ticket gets upheld depends on the judge’s feelings towards technology. She stated, “It’s all in how a judge will interpret it and I suspect their love or hate and understanding of the technology might help or the opposite.”

It seems clear that many of the functions of Google Glass—such as video streaming and web browsing, fall firmly into the category of distracted driving. But there’s also some grey area with Google Glass. Google Glass does contain the potential for navigation software. That type of software, such as a hands-free GPS device, is usually exempted from distracted driving laws. Whether or not Google Glass is ever used for that kind of purpose could change whether or not it is considered distracted driving. However, that raises another important issue: how would officers be able to tell if someone they pull over is using Google Glass for navigation, or for something else?

It’s important to note that Google Glass has presented itself as a program to be used while driving. In the manual, it states that Glass can provide directions, whether “whether you’re on a bike, in a car, taking the subway, or going by foot.” However, the Glass FAQ does also point out that many states have laws preventing the use of such technology while driving. Some states have introduced legislation that specifically prevents the type of technology that Glass uses. West Virginia and Arizona specifically have created amendments that forbid drivers from “using a wearable computer with head mounted display.”

Technology often is ahead of law. I highly doubt that Google Glass will become a norm the way that using a GPS while driving has, but as this new technology develops so quickly, it may become difficult for law enforcement to keep pace. That being said, until Google Glass’s place within driving law becomes regularly accepted, intrepid tech-fans who are trying them out should assume that if they get caught driving while wearing Glass, they will pay the price.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

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 Google Glasses: a Whole New Level of Distracted Driving appeared first on Law Street.