My Brother’s Keeper
Recently, the White House launched the “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative to empower boys and young men of color.
This new Obama administration initiative is intended to address the systemic challenges and barriers faced by young men of color in schools, communities, and in the criminal justice system.
In response to this new Obama Administration initiative, some have argued that the opportunity gap faced by boys and young men of color will not be closed by a set of programs and initiatives that benefit some individuals but do not have a larger scale, collective impact.
In his article on My Brother’s Keeper Warren Simmons, Executive Director of Brown University’s Annenberg Institute for School Reform, stated that “…..We must first acknowledge the historical nature of the problem [ i.e. opportunity gap] and its damaging, cumulative impact. Then, we must reinvest in communities and urge the people who live there to define what that reinvestment looks like. The solution is not technical. It’s not about data. It is about fundamental change at the social, political and cultural levels…..”
For a further information on this new initiative, please visit the following website: http://www.ed.gov/blog/2014/02/my-brothers-keeper-a-new-white-house-initiative-to-empower-boys-and-young-men-of-color/
Source(s): US Dept. of Education
“What Will It Take To Close The Opportunity Gap”, Cognosenti, Warren Simmons, August 22, 2014.
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
This new Obama administration initiative is intended to address the systemic challenges and barriers faced by young men of color in schools, communities, and in the criminal justice system.
In response to this new Obama Administration initiative, some have argued that the opportunity gap faced by boys and young men of color will not be closed by a set of programs and initiatives that benefit some individuals but do not have a larger scale, collective impact.
In his article on My Brother’s Keeper Warren Simmons, Executive Director of Brown University’s Annenberg Institute for School Reform, stated that “…..We must first acknowledge the historical nature of the problem [ i.e. opportunity gap] and its damaging, cumulative impact. Then, we must reinvest in communities and urge the people who live there to define what that reinvestment looks like. The solution is not technical. It’s not about data. It is about fundamental change at the social, political and cultural levels…..”
For a further information on this new initiative, please visit the following website: http://www.ed.gov/blog/2014/02/my-brothers-keeper-a-new-white-house-initiative-to-empower-boys-and-young-men-of-color/
Source(s): US Dept. of Education
“What Will It Take To Close The Opportunity Gap”, Cognosenti, Warren Simmons, August 22, 2014.
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
U.S. Department of Education Releases Civil Rights Data
In a new survey of schools, the US Department of Education finds that students of color face much harsher discipline. Additionally, the survey finds that students of color are often taught by lower-paid and less experienced teachers.
If want to learn how the District of Columbia stacks up with other school systems in the afore-referenced regards, you can visit the following website: http://ocrdata.ed.gov/.
Source(s): ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE & EDUCATION INC
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
If want to learn how the District of Columbia stacks up with other school systems in the afore-referenced regards, you can visit the following website: http://ocrdata.ed.gov/.
Source(s): ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE & EDUCATION INC
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
Protecting the Civil Rights of Students with Disabilities and their Families
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights released a guidance providing a reminder that our federal civil rights laws apply to charter schools just as they apply to other public schools.
For further information, please see: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201405-charter.pdf.
Source: Advocates for Justice & Education
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
For further information, please see: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201405-charter.pdf.
Source: Advocates for Justice & Education
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
States Struggle with the Appropriateness of Capital Punishment as a Criminal Sanction…?
Thirty-six states have either abolished the death penalty, have executions on hold, or have not carried out an execution in at least 5 years. Recently, three states, Arizona, Ohio, and Oklahoma, temporarily halted executions as reviews are conducted of botched executions.
In six states, Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, and North Carolina, a de facto moratorium on executions is in place because of lethal-injection challenges; most of those states have not had an execution since 2008. Colorado, Oregon, and Washington have formal moratoriums on executions imposed by their governors. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have abolished the death penalty.
In six additional states, while no formal hold is in place, no execution has been conducted in at least five years. The U.S. military and federal government also authorize the death penalty, but neither has had an execution in over ten years.
Our nation has struggled with the question of the appropriateness of capital punishment as a criminal sanction for decades. According to the Death Penalty Information enter, there are thirty-four (34) states with the death penalty and sixteen (16) without this criminal sanction. Opponents to capital punishment assert that the criminal justice system is riddled with injustice and error under these conditions the death penalty must be halted. Some argue that there is a wealth of evidence that proves the ineffectiveness of the death penalty in achieving its states goals.
According to recent opinion polls[i], the majority of American voters (61%) prefer other criminal sanctions for murder convictions as opposed to the death penalty and some in law enforcement question its effectiveness. A 2009 poll commissioned by the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) found police chiefs ranked the death penalty last among the strategies employed to reduce violent crimes[ii] and viewed it as the least efficient use of taxpayers’ money.[iii]
Opponents of the death penalty, both in the United States and around the world, assert that not only is it costly, it is also immoral, ineffective, and discriminatory. They assert that the death penalty is often used disproportionately against the poor and people of color. Human beings and systems created by humans are fallible. With that said, the risk of executing innocent persons can never be completely eliminated from the criminal justice system as evidence by the annual number of death row inmate exonerations.
How many death row inmates have been exonerated on average per year? “From 1973-1999, there was an average of 3.1 death row inmate exonerations per year. This has caused many in the legal community to assert that our criminal justice system is riddled with errors.” [iv] Annually, the number of death prisoner exonerations has increased. [v] On average, there has been an average of five (5) exonerations per year from 2000-2007.[vi]
We are reminded about the high costs associated with putting a person on death row by many members of the legal community as well as death row opponents. The costs associated with death penalty cases include but are not limited to: criminal investigation related costs; lengthy trials and appeals; and most importantly, the possible execution of an innocent person. These factors have led many states to reconsider the validity of capital punishment.
In 2009, New Mexico abolished the death penalty.[vii] This year, Illinois’ governor signed a death penalty ban into law in March.[viii] Illinois is the sixteenth state to abolish the death penalty.[ix] In addition to ending capital punishment, Illinois’ governor also commuted the sentences of the fifteen (15) inmates on death row in that state[x]. Instead of death sentences, the inmates will serve life in prison without the possibility of parole.[xi] Illinois’ ban on executions will take effect on July 1, 2011.[xii]
According to the Bureau of Prisons, there are fifty-seven (57) people on death role in the federal penal system[xiii]. There are thousands more on death row in state prisons across the country[xiv]. Eighty percent of all executions occur in the southern portion of the United States[xv]. One of the most highly discussed death penalty cases in recent history is that of Troy Anthony Davis[xvi] in Savannah, Georgia. For more than a decade, this capital punishment case has captured the attention of countless people not only in the United States (e.g. President Carter, former Congressman Bob Barr) but also people all around the world (e.g. The Pope and Nobel Prize winner cleric Desmund Tutu).
For persons opposed to capital punishment or those seeking a moratorium, the Davis case undergirds their assertion that wrongful convictions occur and the death penalty must be halted at a minimum until the errors which occur in the criminal justice system have been remedied. Opponents to the death penalty assert that not only do wrongful convictions occur in this country but also innocent people have been sentenced to die[xvii] and some have been executed. With that said, should the death penalty be abolished nationwide?
The number of death row prisoner exonerations which occur on an annual basis as well as high profile death penalty cases such as Troy Davis where there is no physical evidence linking him to the crime serve to remind us that serious questions still persist about the legitimacy of the death penalty as a criminal sanction. The topic of capital punishment often generates lively discussions about the appropriateness of government sanctioned taking of human lives. It is my hope that this series will generate thoughtful conversations about the death penalty. Toward that goal, I will examine the often controversial topic of the death penalty in the next three (3) blog posts. Specifically, I will examine: (1) a case where the defendant was found guilty of murder and he was not sentenced to death; (2) whether or not capital punishment accomplishes its stated goals; and (3) public opinions on the death penalty.
For further information concerning this pressing topic, an important resource is the Death Penalty Information Center’s website. If you are interested in working to abolish the death penalty, many resources can be found on the Amnesty International website including: petitions, fact sheets, organizing materials, as well as helpful suggestions on how to get involved and take action to end the death penalty.
Sources: The Council of the American Law Institute (ALI); Death Penalty Information Center; Politico (March 9, 2011); Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial, “Juries Know Better”, May 20, 2011; Amnesty International; NAACP; savannahnow.com/…/pope-makes-plea-spare-life-troy-davis; and the Innocence Project. Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art.
[i] A 2010 poll by Lake Research Partners and 2009 poll commissioned by DPIC.
[ii] Death Penalty Information Center Website
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] As indicated on the Death Penalty Information Center website, according to the Staff Report, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Constitutional Rights, printed in October 1993, with updates from DPIC, since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. From 1973-1999, there was an average 3.1 exonerations per year. From 2000-2007, there has been an average of 5 exonerations per year.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Death Penalty Information Center Website
[viii] Politico, March 9, 2011.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Ibid.
[xiii] Bureau of Prisons’ website.
[xiv] According to the Death Penalty Information Center, as of January 1, 2010, there were 3,621 persons on death row in the United States.
[xv] Amnesty International
[xvi] Ibid. “Troy Davis was convicted of murdering a Georgia police officer in 1991. Nearly two decades later, Davis remains on death row — even though the case against him has fallen apart. On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Troy Davis’ appeals and set the stage for him to possibly face a fourth execution date. The case against him consisted entirely of witness testimony which contained inconsistencies even at the time of the trial. Since then, all but two of the state’s non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony.
Many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis. One of the two witnesses who has not recanted his testimony is Sylvester “Red” Coles — the principle alternative suspect, according to the defense, against whom there is new evidence implicating him as the gunman. Nine individuals have signed affidavits implicating Sylvester Coles.”—Amnesty International
[xvii] As indicated on the Death Penalty Information Center website, according to the Staff Report, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Constitutional Rights, printed in October 1993, with updates from DPIC, since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. From 1973-1999, there was an average 3.1 exonerations per year. From 2000-2007, there has been an average of 5 exonerations per year.
In six states, Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, and North Carolina, a de facto moratorium on executions is in place because of lethal-injection challenges; most of those states have not had an execution since 2008. Colorado, Oregon, and Washington have formal moratoriums on executions imposed by their governors. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have abolished the death penalty.
In six additional states, while no formal hold is in place, no execution has been conducted in at least five years. The U.S. military and federal government also authorize the death penalty, but neither has had an execution in over ten years.
Our nation has struggled with the question of the appropriateness of capital punishment as a criminal sanction for decades. According to the Death Penalty Information enter, there are thirty-four (34) states with the death penalty and sixteen (16) without this criminal sanction. Opponents to capital punishment assert that the criminal justice system is riddled with injustice and error under these conditions the death penalty must be halted. Some argue that there is a wealth of evidence that proves the ineffectiveness of the death penalty in achieving its states goals.
According to recent opinion polls[i], the majority of American voters (61%) prefer other criminal sanctions for murder convictions as opposed to the death penalty and some in law enforcement question its effectiveness. A 2009 poll commissioned by the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) found police chiefs ranked the death penalty last among the strategies employed to reduce violent crimes[ii] and viewed it as the least efficient use of taxpayers’ money.[iii]
Opponents of the death penalty, both in the United States and around the world, assert that not only is it costly, it is also immoral, ineffective, and discriminatory. They assert that the death penalty is often used disproportionately against the poor and people of color. Human beings and systems created by humans are fallible. With that said, the risk of executing innocent persons can never be completely eliminated from the criminal justice system as evidence by the annual number of death row inmate exonerations.
How many death row inmates have been exonerated on average per year? “From 1973-1999, there was an average of 3.1 death row inmate exonerations per year. This has caused many in the legal community to assert that our criminal justice system is riddled with errors.” [iv] Annually, the number of death prisoner exonerations has increased. [v] On average, there has been an average of five (5) exonerations per year from 2000-2007.[vi]
We are reminded about the high costs associated with putting a person on death row by many members of the legal community as well as death row opponents. The costs associated with death penalty cases include but are not limited to: criminal investigation related costs; lengthy trials and appeals; and most importantly, the possible execution of an innocent person. These factors have led many states to reconsider the validity of capital punishment.
In 2009, New Mexico abolished the death penalty.[vii] This year, Illinois’ governor signed a death penalty ban into law in March.[viii] Illinois is the sixteenth state to abolish the death penalty.[ix] In addition to ending capital punishment, Illinois’ governor also commuted the sentences of the fifteen (15) inmates on death row in that state[x]. Instead of death sentences, the inmates will serve life in prison without the possibility of parole.[xi] Illinois’ ban on executions will take effect on July 1, 2011.[xii]
According to the Bureau of Prisons, there are fifty-seven (57) people on death role in the federal penal system[xiii]. There are thousands more on death row in state prisons across the country[xiv]. Eighty percent of all executions occur in the southern portion of the United States[xv]. One of the most highly discussed death penalty cases in recent history is that of Troy Anthony Davis[xvi] in Savannah, Georgia. For more than a decade, this capital punishment case has captured the attention of countless people not only in the United States (e.g. President Carter, former Congressman Bob Barr) but also people all around the world (e.g. The Pope and Nobel Prize winner cleric Desmund Tutu).
For persons opposed to capital punishment or those seeking a moratorium, the Davis case undergirds their assertion that wrongful convictions occur and the death penalty must be halted at a minimum until the errors which occur in the criminal justice system have been remedied. Opponents to the death penalty assert that not only do wrongful convictions occur in this country but also innocent people have been sentenced to die[xvii] and some have been executed. With that said, should the death penalty be abolished nationwide?
The number of death row prisoner exonerations which occur on an annual basis as well as high profile death penalty cases such as Troy Davis where there is no physical evidence linking him to the crime serve to remind us that serious questions still persist about the legitimacy of the death penalty as a criminal sanction. The topic of capital punishment often generates lively discussions about the appropriateness of government sanctioned taking of human lives. It is my hope that this series will generate thoughtful conversations about the death penalty. Toward that goal, I will examine the often controversial topic of the death penalty in the next three (3) blog posts. Specifically, I will examine: (1) a case where the defendant was found guilty of murder and he was not sentenced to death; (2) whether or not capital punishment accomplishes its stated goals; and (3) public opinions on the death penalty.
For further information concerning this pressing topic, an important resource is the Death Penalty Information Center’s website. If you are interested in working to abolish the death penalty, many resources can be found on the Amnesty International website including: petitions, fact sheets, organizing materials, as well as helpful suggestions on how to get involved and take action to end the death penalty.
Sources: The Council of the American Law Institute (ALI); Death Penalty Information Center; Politico (March 9, 2011); Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial, “Juries Know Better”, May 20, 2011; Amnesty International; NAACP; savannahnow.com/…/pope-makes-plea-spare-life-troy-davis; and the Innocence Project. Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art.
[i] A 2010 poll by Lake Research Partners and 2009 poll commissioned by DPIC.
[ii] Death Penalty Information Center Website
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] As indicated on the Death Penalty Information Center website, according to the Staff Report, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Constitutional Rights, printed in October 1993, with updates from DPIC, since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. From 1973-1999, there was an average 3.1 exonerations per year. From 2000-2007, there has been an average of 5 exonerations per year.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Death Penalty Information Center Website
[viii] Politico, March 9, 2011.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Ibid.
[xiii] Bureau of Prisons’ website.
[xiv] According to the Death Penalty Information Center, as of January 1, 2010, there were 3,621 persons on death row in the United States.
[xv] Amnesty International
[xvi] Ibid. “Troy Davis was convicted of murdering a Georgia police officer in 1991. Nearly two decades later, Davis remains on death row — even though the case against him has fallen apart. On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Troy Davis’ appeals and set the stage for him to possibly face a fourth execution date. The case against him consisted entirely of witness testimony which contained inconsistencies even at the time of the trial. Since then, all but two of the state’s non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony.
Many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis. One of the two witnesses who has not recanted his testimony is Sylvester “Red” Coles — the principle alternative suspect, according to the defense, against whom there is new evidence implicating him as the gunman. Nine individuals have signed affidavits implicating Sylvester Coles.”—Amnesty International
[xvii] As indicated on the Death Penalty Information Center website, according to the Staff Report, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Constitutional Rights, printed in October 1993, with updates from DPIC, since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. From 1973-1999, there was an average 3.1 exonerations per year. From 2000-2007, there has been an average of 5 exonerations per year.
New Data on Autism
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, released a new report which indicates that the prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) in children is one in sixty-eight (68) or 14.7 per thousand (1,000) eight year olds.
This figure on the prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) in children represents an approximate thirty (30) percent increase between 2008 and 2010. While the cause of the increase is unknown, it is likely that better awareness, screening, and diagnosis efforts play a significant role.
The report, Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder among Children Aged 8 Years – Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 sites, United States, 2010, is available at the following web address: cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6302a1.htm.
Source(s): Advocates and Justice in Education
Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art
This figure on the prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) in children represents an approximate thirty (30) percent increase between 2008 and 2010. While the cause of the increase is unknown, it is likely that better awareness, screening, and diagnosis efforts play a significant role.
The report, Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder among Children Aged 8 Years – Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 sites, United States, 2010, is available at the following web address: cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6302a1.htm.
Source(s): Advocates and Justice in Education
Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art
Kinship Care: Grandparents Raising Grandchildren
Many of today’s grandparents have become full-time caregivers for their grandchildren. United States Census 2000 indicates that 4.5 million of our nation’s poorest children reside in grandparent-headed households and that number is escalating rapidly. Data indicates that approximately one-third of these children have no parent present in the home. The number of children in grandparent-headed households has increased 30 percent since 1990.
Research data indicates that in New York, there are 297,239 children living in grandparent-headed households which constitutes 6.3% of all the children in that state. Twenty-eight percent of these grandparents live in households without the children’s parents present. The literature on this phenomenon suggests that there are probably many more children in informal care arrangements residing with their grandparents than the data can capture.
AARP indicates that the majority of grandparents rearing grandchildren are between ages 55 and 64. Approximately 20 to 25 percent are 65 or older. While grandparent-headed families cross all socio-economic levels, these grandparents are more likely to live in poverty than are other grandparents. AARP materials also state that there are eight times more children in grandparent-headed homes than in the foster care system.
Although the phenomenon of grandparents raising grandchildren is neither novel nor new, this emerging social issue is garnering a great deal of national attention due to its impact on the welfare of an ever increasing number of our nation’s children. The rise in the number of grandparent headed households is due to serious family problems. The reasons for the increase in grandparent headed households include but are not limited to: AIDS, abandonment, child abuse and neglect, substance abuse, teenage pregnancy, death, divorce, incarceration, and the parent’s lack of employment.
Caring for their grandchildren can have life altering consequences for the grandparents. Many grandparents have not planned to raise a second family or may be retired and living on a fixed income. Having sufficient income or resources to provide housing, food, clothing, medicine, and school supplies for their grandchildren may be of critical concern. Research indicates that children raised by their grandparents are more likely than children in traditional foster care to live in poverty, to have special health and educational needs, and to lack access to health care.
While grandparents have played a significant role in the lives of their grandchildren for generations, the increasing numbers of grandparents with responsibility for their grandchildren and the rise in social factors necessitating this arrangement have created millions of vulnerable families with unique needs. For further information on the topic of grandparents raising grandchildren or to get help, please call or visit the website of: AARP’s Grandparent Information Center: 202-434-2296; and Generation’s United: 202-289-3979.
Sources: Children’s Defense Fund website, AARP’s Grandparent Information Center website, US Census Bureau, and Generations United website.
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
Research data indicates that in New York, there are 297,239 children living in grandparent-headed households which constitutes 6.3% of all the children in that state. Twenty-eight percent of these grandparents live in households without the children’s parents present. The literature on this phenomenon suggests that there are probably many more children in informal care arrangements residing with their grandparents than the data can capture.
AARP indicates that the majority of grandparents rearing grandchildren are between ages 55 and 64. Approximately 20 to 25 percent are 65 or older. While grandparent-headed families cross all socio-economic levels, these grandparents are more likely to live in poverty than are other grandparents. AARP materials also state that there are eight times more children in grandparent-headed homes than in the foster care system.
Although the phenomenon of grandparents raising grandchildren is neither novel nor new, this emerging social issue is garnering a great deal of national attention due to its impact on the welfare of an ever increasing number of our nation’s children. The rise in the number of grandparent headed households is due to serious family problems. The reasons for the increase in grandparent headed households include but are not limited to: AIDS, abandonment, child abuse and neglect, substance abuse, teenage pregnancy, death, divorce, incarceration, and the parent’s lack of employment.
Caring for their grandchildren can have life altering consequences for the grandparents. Many grandparents have not planned to raise a second family or may be retired and living on a fixed income. Having sufficient income or resources to provide housing, food, clothing, medicine, and school supplies for their grandchildren may be of critical concern. Research indicates that children raised by their grandparents are more likely than children in traditional foster care to live in poverty, to have special health and educational needs, and to lack access to health care.
While grandparents have played a significant role in the lives of their grandchildren for generations, the increasing numbers of grandparents with responsibility for their grandchildren and the rise in social factors necessitating this arrangement have created millions of vulnerable families with unique needs. For further information on the topic of grandparents raising grandchildren or to get help, please call or visit the website of: AARP’s Grandparent Information Center: 202-434-2296; and Generation’s United: 202-289-3979.
Sources: Children’s Defense Fund website, AARP’s Grandparent Information Center website, US Census Bureau, and Generations United website.
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
Children Born to Teenage Mothers
An increasing number of children are being born to teenage mothers. It has been reported that children born to teenage mothers experience significant life-long challenges.
Social science research indicates that teenage mothers are more likely to drop out of high school and live in poverty, and their children frequently experience health and developmental problems (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2004). While millions of American families struggle individually with the emotional and economic challenges that unintended pregnancy can bring, teen pregnancy poses a significant financial burden to society at large — an estimated $7 billion per year (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1998; National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2003a).[1]
Data indicates that teen pregnancy rates vary widely by race and ethnicity. In 2000, the pregnancy rate for white teens was 56.9 per 1,000 women 15-19 years of age. The pregnancy rate for Hispanic teens was 132. For African American teens it was 151 (Abma et al., 2004).[2] In general, it has been reported that teenage mothers do not fare as well as their peers who delay childbearing:
- Their family incomes are lower.
- They are more likely to be poor and receive welfare. – They are less educated.
- They are less likely to be married.
- Their children lag in standards of early development.
(AGI, 1999; Hoffman, 1998; National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2003a; National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2004a).[3]
In the United States, nearly 80 percent of teen mothers eventually go on welfare. According to one study, more than 75 percent of all unmarried teen mothers began receiving welfare within five years of giving birth (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1998; National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2004).
In 2001, only 30 percent of teenage mothers received child support payments (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2004). Although not as severe as those for teen mothers, the effects of early childbearing are also negative for teen fathers. They are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors such as alcohol abuse or drug dealing, and they complete fewer years of schooling than their childless peers. One study found that the fathers of children born to teen mothers earned an estimated average of $3,400 less per year than the fathers of children born to mothers who were 20 or 21, over the course of 18 years following the birth of their first child (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1998).
The offspring of teenage mothers are more likely to be poor, abused, or neglected than those of women who delay childbearing, and they are less likely to receive proper nutrition, health care, and cognitive and social stimulation (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1998; Maynard, 1997). On average, a child born to a teenage mother visits a medical provider 3.8 times per year, versus 4.3 times for a child born to a mother over the age of 20 years (National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2004b).
Experts estimate that the annual costs of births to teens totals about $7 billion in tax revenues, public assistance, child health care, foster care, and involvement with the criminal justice system. In addition, during her first 13 years of parenthood, the average teenage mother receives approximately $1,400 per year in support from Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and the federal food stamp program (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1998)
Sources: Annie E. Casey Foundation. (1998). Kids Count Special Report: When Teens Have Sex: Issues and Trends. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Abma, J.C., et al. (2004). Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Childbearing, 2002. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics, 23(24). AGI — Alan Guttmacher Institute. (1995, accessed 1999, August 30). Issues in Brief: Lawmakers Grapple with Parents’ Role in Teen Access to Reproductive Health Care. [Online]. http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib6.html.
Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art
[1] Annie E. Casey Foundation. (1998). Kids Count Special Report: When Teens Have Sex: Issues and Trends. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
[2] Abma, J.C., et al. (2004). Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Childbearing, 2002. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics, 23(24).
[3] AGI — Alan Guttmacher Institute. (1995, accessed 1999, August 30). Issues in Brief: Lawmakers Grapple with Parents’ Role in Teen Access to Reproductive Health Care. [Online]. http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib6.html.
Social science research indicates that teenage mothers are more likely to drop out of high school and live in poverty, and their children frequently experience health and developmental problems (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2004). While millions of American families struggle individually with the emotional and economic challenges that unintended pregnancy can bring, teen pregnancy poses a significant financial burden to society at large — an estimated $7 billion per year (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1998; National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2003a).[1]
Data indicates that teen pregnancy rates vary widely by race and ethnicity. In 2000, the pregnancy rate for white teens was 56.9 per 1,000 women 15-19 years of age. The pregnancy rate for Hispanic teens was 132. For African American teens it was 151 (Abma et al., 2004).[2] In general, it has been reported that teenage mothers do not fare as well as their peers who delay childbearing:
- Their family incomes are lower.
- They are more likely to be poor and receive welfare. – They are less educated.
- They are less likely to be married.
- Their children lag in standards of early development.
(AGI, 1999; Hoffman, 1998; National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2003a; National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2004a).[3]
In the United States, nearly 80 percent of teen mothers eventually go on welfare. According to one study, more than 75 percent of all unmarried teen mothers began receiving welfare within five years of giving birth (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1998; National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2004).
In 2001, only 30 percent of teenage mothers received child support payments (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2004). Although not as severe as those for teen mothers, the effects of early childbearing are also negative for teen fathers. They are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors such as alcohol abuse or drug dealing, and they complete fewer years of schooling than their childless peers. One study found that the fathers of children born to teen mothers earned an estimated average of $3,400 less per year than the fathers of children born to mothers who were 20 or 21, over the course of 18 years following the birth of their first child (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1998).
The offspring of teenage mothers are more likely to be poor, abused, or neglected than those of women who delay childbearing, and they are less likely to receive proper nutrition, health care, and cognitive and social stimulation (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1998; Maynard, 1997). On average, a child born to a teenage mother visits a medical provider 3.8 times per year, versus 4.3 times for a child born to a mother over the age of 20 years (National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2004b).
Experts estimate that the annual costs of births to teens totals about $7 billion in tax revenues, public assistance, child health care, foster care, and involvement with the criminal justice system. In addition, during her first 13 years of parenthood, the average teenage mother receives approximately $1,400 per year in support from Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and the federal food stamp program (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1998)
Sources: Annie E. Casey Foundation. (1998). Kids Count Special Report: When Teens Have Sex: Issues and Trends. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Abma, J.C., et al. (2004). Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Childbearing, 2002. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics, 23(24). AGI — Alan Guttmacher Institute. (1995, accessed 1999, August 30). Issues in Brief: Lawmakers Grapple with Parents’ Role in Teen Access to Reproductive Health Care. [Online]. http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib6.html.
Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art
[1] Annie E. Casey Foundation. (1998). Kids Count Special Report: When Teens Have Sex: Issues and Trends. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
[2] Abma, J.C., et al. (2004). Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Childbearing, 2002. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics, 23(24).
[3] AGI — Alan Guttmacher Institute. (1995, accessed 1999, August 30). Issues in Brief: Lawmakers Grapple with Parents’ Role in Teen Access to Reproductive Health Care. [Online]. http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib6.html.
Death Penalty: Cruel and Unusual Punishment?
For many death penalty opponents, the recently botched executions that have made the national headlines serve to highlight the fact that the death penalty is in fact cruel and usual punishment and therefore unconstitutional. The state of Arizona’s execution of Joseph Wood III on July 23 took nearly two hours, with witnesses reporting that Wood gasped and snorted over six hundred (600) times during the procedure. Mr. Wood was executed using midazolam and hyrdromorphone, the same drug protocol used in January’s botched execution of Dennis McGuire.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had stayed Joseph Wood’s execution and ordered the state to release information about the source of the lethal injection drugs and the training of those who would carry out the execution, but the stay was lifted by the U.S. Supreme Court on July 22, allowing the state to maintain secrecy.
Attorneys for Joseph Wood tried to file an emergency request to halt the execution because Joseph Wood was still awake an hour into the procedure. Dale Baich, one of Wood’s attorneys, said, “I’ve witnessed a number of executions before and I’ve never seen anything like this. Nor has an execution that I observed taken this long.”
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer ordered a review of the execution, saying she was “concerned by the length of time” that it took. The director of the Department of Corrections said they will conduct a full review and are waiting on results of a toxicology study and autopsy.
Our nation has struggled with the question of the appropriateness of capital punishment as a criminal sanction for decades. According to the Death Penalty Information enter, there are thirty-four (34) states with the death penalty and sixteen (16) without this criminal sanction. Opponents to capital punishment assert that the criminal justice system is riddled with injustice and error under these conditions the death penalty must be halted. Some argue that there is a wealth of evidence that proves the ineffectiveness of the death penalty in achieving its states goals.
According to recent opinion polls[i], the majority of American voters (61%) prefer other criminal sanctions for murder convictions as opposed to the death penalty and some in law enforcement question its effectiveness. A 2009 poll commissioned by the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) found police chiefs ranked the death penalty last among the strategies employed to reduce violent crimes[ii] and viewed it as the least efficient use of taxpayers’ money.[iii]
Opponents of the death penalty, both in the United States and around the world, assert that not only is it costly, it is also immoral, ineffective, and discriminatory. They assert that the death penalty is often used disproportionately against the poor and people of color. Human beings and systems created by humans are fallible. With that said, the risk of executing innocent persons can never be completely eliminated from the criminal justice system as evidence by the annual number of death row inmate exonerations.
How many death row inmates have been exonerated on average per year? “From 1973-1999, there was an average of 3.1 death row inmate exonerations per year. This has caused many in the legal community to assert that our criminal justice system is riddled with errors.” [iv] Annually, the number of death prisoner exonerations has increased. [v] On average, there has been an average of five (5) exonerations per year from 2000-2007.[vi]
We are reminded about the high costs associated with putting a person on death row by many members of the legal community as well as death row opponents. The costs associated with death penalty cases include but are not limited to: criminal investigation related costs; lengthy trials and appeals; and most importantly, the possible execution of an innocent person. These factors have led many states to reconsider the validity of capital punishment.
In 2009, New Mexico abolished the death penalty.[vii] This year, Illinois’ governor signed a death penalty ban into law in March.[viii] Illinois is the sixteenth state to abolish the death penalty.[ix] In addition to ending capital punishment, Illinois’ governor also commuted the sentences of the fifteen (15) inmates on death row in that state[x]. Instead of death sentences, the inmates will serve life in prison without the possibility of parole.[xi] Illinois’ ban on executions took effect on July 1, 2011.[xii]
According to the Bureau of Prisons, there are fifty-seven (57) people on death role in the federal penal system[xiii]. There are thousands more on death row in state prisons across the country[xiv]. Eighty percent of all executions occur in the southern portion of the United States[xv]. One of the most highly discussed death penalty cases in recent history is that of Troy Anthony Davis[xvi] in Savannah, Georgia. For more than a decade, this capital punishment case captured the attention of countless people not only in the United States (e.g. President Carter, former Congressman Bob Barr) but also people all around the world (e.g. The Pope and Nobel Prize winner cleric Desmund Tutu).
For persons opposed to capital punishment or those seeking a moratorium, the Davis case undergirds their assertion that wrongful convictions occur and the death penalty must be halted at a minimum until the errors which occur in the criminal justice system have been remedied. Opponents to the death penalty assert that not only do wrongful convictions occur in this country but also innocent people have been sentenced to die[xvii] and some have been executed. With that said, should the death penalty be abolished nationwide?
The number of death row prisoner exonerations which occur on an annual basis as well as high profile death penalty cases such as Troy Davis where there is no physical evidence linking him to the crime serve to remind us that serious questions still persist about the legitimacy of the death penalty as a criminal sanction. The topic of capital punishment often generates lively discussions about the appropriateness of government sanctioned taking of human lives. It is my hope that this series will generate thoughtful conversations about the death penalty. Toward that goal, I will examine the often controversial topic of the death penalty in the next three (3) blog posts. Specifically, I will examine: (1) a case where the defendant was found guilty of murder and he was not sentenced to death; (2) whether or not capital punishment accomplishes its stated goals; and (3) public opinions on the death penalty.
For further information concerning this pressing topic, an important resource is the Death Penalty Information Center’s website. If you are interested in working to abolish the death penalty, many resources can be found on the Amnesty International website including: petitions, fact sheets, organizing materials, as well as helpful suggestions on how to get involved and take action to end the death penalty.
Sources: The Council of the American Law Institute (ALI); Death Penalty Information Center; Politico (March 9, 2011); Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial, “Juries Know Better”, May 20, 2011; Amnesty International; NAACP;savannahnow.com/…/pope-makes-plea-spare-life-troy-davis; and the Innocence Project. Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art.
[i] A 2010 poll by Lake Research Partners and 2009 poll commissioned by DPIC.
[ii] Death Penalty Information Center Website
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] As indicated on the Death Penalty Information Center website, according to the Staff Report, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Constitutional Rights, printed in October 1993, with updates from DPIC, since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. From 1973-1999, there was an average 3.1 exonerations per year. From 2000-2007, there has been an average of 5 exonerations per year.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Death Penalty Information Center Website
[viii] Politico, March 9, 2011.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Ibid.
[xiii] Bureau of Prisons’ website.
[xiv] According to the Death Penalty Information Center, as of January 1, 2010, there were 3,621 persons on death row in the United States.
[xv] Amnesty International
[xvi] Ibid. “Troy Davis was convicted of murdering a Georgia police officer in 1991. Nearly two decades later, Davis remains on death row — even though the case against him has fallen apart. On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Troy Davis’ appeals and set the stage for him to possibly face a fourth execution date. The case against him consisted entirely of witness testimony which contained inconsistencies even at the time of the trial. Since then, all but two of the state’s non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony.
Many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis. One of the two witnesses who has not recanted his testimony is Sylvester “Red” Coles — the principle alternative suspect, according to the defense, against whom there is new evidence implicating him as the gunman. Nine individuals have signed affidavits implicating Sylvester Coles.”—Amnesty International
[xvii] As indicated on the Death Penalty Information Center website, according to the Staff Report, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Constitutional Rights, printed in October 1993, with updates from DPIC, since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. From 1973-1999, there was an average 3.1 exonerations per year. From 2000-2007, there has been an average of 5 exonerations per year.
Additional Sources: Death Penalty Information Center
Photos: Microsoft Clip Art
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had stayed Joseph Wood’s execution and ordered the state to release information about the source of the lethal injection drugs and the training of those who would carry out the execution, but the stay was lifted by the U.S. Supreme Court on July 22, allowing the state to maintain secrecy.
Attorneys for Joseph Wood tried to file an emergency request to halt the execution because Joseph Wood was still awake an hour into the procedure. Dale Baich, one of Wood’s attorneys, said, “I’ve witnessed a number of executions before and I’ve never seen anything like this. Nor has an execution that I observed taken this long.”
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer ordered a review of the execution, saying she was “concerned by the length of time” that it took. The director of the Department of Corrections said they will conduct a full review and are waiting on results of a toxicology study and autopsy.
Our nation has struggled with the question of the appropriateness of capital punishment as a criminal sanction for decades. According to the Death Penalty Information enter, there are thirty-four (34) states with the death penalty and sixteen (16) without this criminal sanction. Opponents to capital punishment assert that the criminal justice system is riddled with injustice and error under these conditions the death penalty must be halted. Some argue that there is a wealth of evidence that proves the ineffectiveness of the death penalty in achieving its states goals.
According to recent opinion polls[i], the majority of American voters (61%) prefer other criminal sanctions for murder convictions as opposed to the death penalty and some in law enforcement question its effectiveness. A 2009 poll commissioned by the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) found police chiefs ranked the death penalty last among the strategies employed to reduce violent crimes[ii] and viewed it as the least efficient use of taxpayers’ money.[iii]
Opponents of the death penalty, both in the United States and around the world, assert that not only is it costly, it is also immoral, ineffective, and discriminatory. They assert that the death penalty is often used disproportionately against the poor and people of color. Human beings and systems created by humans are fallible. With that said, the risk of executing innocent persons can never be completely eliminated from the criminal justice system as evidence by the annual number of death row inmate exonerations.
How many death row inmates have been exonerated on average per year? “From 1973-1999, there was an average of 3.1 death row inmate exonerations per year. This has caused many in the legal community to assert that our criminal justice system is riddled with errors.” [iv] Annually, the number of death prisoner exonerations has increased. [v] On average, there has been an average of five (5) exonerations per year from 2000-2007.[vi]
We are reminded about the high costs associated with putting a person on death row by many members of the legal community as well as death row opponents. The costs associated with death penalty cases include but are not limited to: criminal investigation related costs; lengthy trials and appeals; and most importantly, the possible execution of an innocent person. These factors have led many states to reconsider the validity of capital punishment.
In 2009, New Mexico abolished the death penalty.[vii] This year, Illinois’ governor signed a death penalty ban into law in March.[viii] Illinois is the sixteenth state to abolish the death penalty.[ix] In addition to ending capital punishment, Illinois’ governor also commuted the sentences of the fifteen (15) inmates on death row in that state[x]. Instead of death sentences, the inmates will serve life in prison without the possibility of parole.[xi] Illinois’ ban on executions took effect on July 1, 2011.[xii]
According to the Bureau of Prisons, there are fifty-seven (57) people on death role in the federal penal system[xiii]. There are thousands more on death row in state prisons across the country[xiv]. Eighty percent of all executions occur in the southern portion of the United States[xv]. One of the most highly discussed death penalty cases in recent history is that of Troy Anthony Davis[xvi] in Savannah, Georgia. For more than a decade, this capital punishment case captured the attention of countless people not only in the United States (e.g. President Carter, former Congressman Bob Barr) but also people all around the world (e.g. The Pope and Nobel Prize winner cleric Desmund Tutu).
For persons opposed to capital punishment or those seeking a moratorium, the Davis case undergirds their assertion that wrongful convictions occur and the death penalty must be halted at a minimum until the errors which occur in the criminal justice system have been remedied. Opponents to the death penalty assert that not only do wrongful convictions occur in this country but also innocent people have been sentenced to die[xvii] and some have been executed. With that said, should the death penalty be abolished nationwide?
The number of death row prisoner exonerations which occur on an annual basis as well as high profile death penalty cases such as Troy Davis where there is no physical evidence linking him to the crime serve to remind us that serious questions still persist about the legitimacy of the death penalty as a criminal sanction. The topic of capital punishment often generates lively discussions about the appropriateness of government sanctioned taking of human lives. It is my hope that this series will generate thoughtful conversations about the death penalty. Toward that goal, I will examine the often controversial topic of the death penalty in the next three (3) blog posts. Specifically, I will examine: (1) a case where the defendant was found guilty of murder and he was not sentenced to death; (2) whether or not capital punishment accomplishes its stated goals; and (3) public opinions on the death penalty.
For further information concerning this pressing topic, an important resource is the Death Penalty Information Center’s website. If you are interested in working to abolish the death penalty, many resources can be found on the Amnesty International website including: petitions, fact sheets, organizing materials, as well as helpful suggestions on how to get involved and take action to end the death penalty.
Sources: The Council of the American Law Institute (ALI); Death Penalty Information Center; Politico (March 9, 2011); Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial, “Juries Know Better”, May 20, 2011; Amnesty International; NAACP;savannahnow.com/…/pope-makes-plea-spare-life-troy-davis; and the Innocence Project. Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art.
[i] A 2010 poll by Lake Research Partners and 2009 poll commissioned by DPIC.
[ii] Death Penalty Information Center Website
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] As indicated on the Death Penalty Information Center website, according to the Staff Report, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Constitutional Rights, printed in October 1993, with updates from DPIC, since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. From 1973-1999, there was an average 3.1 exonerations per year. From 2000-2007, there has been an average of 5 exonerations per year.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Death Penalty Information Center Website
[viii] Politico, March 9, 2011.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Ibid.
[xiii] Bureau of Prisons’ website.
[xiv] According to the Death Penalty Information Center, as of January 1, 2010, there were 3,621 persons on death row in the United States.
[xv] Amnesty International
[xvi] Ibid. “Troy Davis was convicted of murdering a Georgia police officer in 1991. Nearly two decades later, Davis remains on death row — even though the case against him has fallen apart. On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Troy Davis’ appeals and set the stage for him to possibly face a fourth execution date. The case against him consisted entirely of witness testimony which contained inconsistencies even at the time of the trial. Since then, all but two of the state’s non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony.
Many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis. One of the two witnesses who has not recanted his testimony is Sylvester “Red” Coles — the principle alternative suspect, according to the defense, against whom there is new evidence implicating him as the gunman. Nine individuals have signed affidavits implicating Sylvester Coles.”—Amnesty International
[xvii] As indicated on the Death Penalty Information Center website, according to the Staff Report, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Constitutional Rights, printed in October 1993, with updates from DPIC, since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. From 1973-1999, there was an average 3.1 exonerations per year. From 2000-2007, there has been an average of 5 exonerations per year.
Additional Sources: Death Penalty Information Center
Photos: Microsoft Clip Art
Child Witnesses
Every 9 seconds in the United States a woman is assaulted or beaten. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women—more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined. Studies suggest that up to 10 million children witness some form of domestic violence annually. It has been reported that men who as children witnessed their parents’ domestic violence were twice as likely to abuse their own wives than sons of nonviolent parents. Child witnesses to domestic violence often have life-long effects. Please read the data below regarding child witnesses to domestic violence.
DATA:
•Between 3.3 million and 25 million children experience domestic violence in their homes each year.
•The average age of a homeless person in the U.S. is 9 years old. 50 percent of homeless women and children are fleeing abuse in the home.
•Children who live in homes where their mothers are battered are 50% more likely to be beaten themselves. Research indicates that 50 to 70 percent of men who physically abuse their wives also frequently abuse their children.
•In one study, 27% of domestic homicide victims were children. When children are killed during a domestic dispute, 90% are under age 10; 56% are under age 2. Children from homes where their mothers is beaten suffer eating and sleeping disorders, have headaches, ulcers, rashes, depression, and anxiety caused by the trauma of witnessing abuse.
•They have a higher risk of abusing substances and becoming juvenile delinquents.
•Eighty percent of teen runaways and homeless youth come from violent homes.
•Girls from homes with domestic violence are 6.5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted and more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.
•A boy from a home where his mother is battered is 74% more likely to commit violence, including rape.
•Boys who grow up in non-violent homes have one chance in 400 of becoming abusive adults, but boys who grow up in violent homes have one chance in two of becoming abusive adults.
•Sixty-three percent of boys ages 11-20 arrested for homicide have killed their mother’s abuser.
How are children affected by domestic violence?
•They exhibit “failure to thrive” symptoms, even as infants.
•They may exhibit “general aggressiveness” or violence to siblings or the
“victim parent” in ways that emulate the abusive parent.
•They may exhibit a pattern of “over-compliance” and fearfulness.
•They often suffer from low self-esteem.
•They often suffer poor health.
•They may have poor impulse control.
•They often experience academic problems.
•They live frequently ”disrupted lives” when the victim is forced to flee the home.
•They, along with their mothers, comprise nearly 40% of the homeless population in the U.S.
•They are sometimes injured during violent incidents in the home or the family
vehicle.
•They are more often abducted by the abuser parent than other children.
•They may have a fear and distrust of close relationships.
•They may become conflicted in taking sides with parents.
•They experience confusion over correct behavior.
•They experience psychosomatic complaints, i.e., stomachaches, headaches, stuttering, anxiety, fear, etc.
•They experience “night terrors” (waking up screaming in the night).
•They may wet the bed.
•They kill themselves more often than children who do not live with abuse.
•They are likely to repeat learned behaviors.
•They blame themselves for the violence or the inability to stop it and protect the victim parent.
•They often experience PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).
•They are more likely to be victim of child physical and sexual abuse, most often by the abuser parent and less often by the victim.
•They are four times as likely to be arrested eventually.
•They are more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs.
•They are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior.
•They are more likely to commit crime against other persons and sexual assaults.
Sources: http://www.pcadv.org. http://www.stopvaw.org.http://www.aaets.org. http://www.unicef.org. http://www.childwelfare.gov.
Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art
DATA:
•Between 3.3 million and 25 million children experience domestic violence in their homes each year.
•The average age of a homeless person in the U.S. is 9 years old. 50 percent of homeless women and children are fleeing abuse in the home.
•Children who live in homes where their mothers are battered are 50% more likely to be beaten themselves. Research indicates that 50 to 70 percent of men who physically abuse their wives also frequently abuse their children.
•In one study, 27% of domestic homicide victims were children. When children are killed during a domestic dispute, 90% are under age 10; 56% are under age 2. Children from homes where their mothers is beaten suffer eating and sleeping disorders, have headaches, ulcers, rashes, depression, and anxiety caused by the trauma of witnessing abuse.
•They have a higher risk of abusing substances and becoming juvenile delinquents.
•Eighty percent of teen runaways and homeless youth come from violent homes.
•Girls from homes with domestic violence are 6.5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted and more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.
•A boy from a home where his mother is battered is 74% more likely to commit violence, including rape.
•Boys who grow up in non-violent homes have one chance in 400 of becoming abusive adults, but boys who grow up in violent homes have one chance in two of becoming abusive adults.
•Sixty-three percent of boys ages 11-20 arrested for homicide have killed their mother’s abuser.
How are children affected by domestic violence?
•They exhibit “failure to thrive” symptoms, even as infants.
•They may exhibit “general aggressiveness” or violence to siblings or the
“victim parent” in ways that emulate the abusive parent.
•They may exhibit a pattern of “over-compliance” and fearfulness.
•They often suffer from low self-esteem.
•They often suffer poor health.
•They may have poor impulse control.
•They often experience academic problems.
•They live frequently ”disrupted lives” when the victim is forced to flee the home.
•They, along with their mothers, comprise nearly 40% of the homeless population in the U.S.
•They are sometimes injured during violent incidents in the home or the family
vehicle.
•They are more often abducted by the abuser parent than other children.
•They may have a fear and distrust of close relationships.
•They may become conflicted in taking sides with parents.
•They experience confusion over correct behavior.
•They experience psychosomatic complaints, i.e., stomachaches, headaches, stuttering, anxiety, fear, etc.
•They experience “night terrors” (waking up screaming in the night).
•They may wet the bed.
•They kill themselves more often than children who do not live with abuse.
•They are likely to repeat learned behaviors.
•They blame themselves for the violence or the inability to stop it and protect the victim parent.
•They often experience PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).
•They are more likely to be victim of child physical and sexual abuse, most often by the abuser parent and less often by the victim.
•They are four times as likely to be arrested eventually.
•They are more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs.
•They are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior.
•They are more likely to commit crime against other persons and sexual assaults.
Sources: http://www.pcadv.org. http://www.stopvaw.org.http://www.aaets.org. http://www.unicef.org. http://www.childwelfare.gov.
Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art
Legally Confronting Bullying Conduct
In response to the increasing number of deaths associated with bullying, there have been anti-bullying laws enacted across the country. Forty-four (44) states and the District of Columbia have enacted anti-bullying laws. Seven states have criminal sanctions which attach to bullying. States have created systems to investigate claims of cyber bullying that help police and school officials to better ascertain the circumstances of each occurrence and prosecute or punish the culprits to the fullest extent of the law.
The law enforcement community has responded to this growing phenomenon by seeking to diligently enforce the anti-bullying laws and working with the community to raise awareness about this pressing problem. Additionally, students, parents, educators, administrators, some elected officials and other concerned citizens have been advocating for better laws to address this growing problem. Their collective advocacy efforts have been relatively successful nationwide.
After the death of Tyler Clementi, New Jersey enacted an “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights”. New Jersey’s recently enacted “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights” is intended to eliminate loopholes in the state’s first anti-bullying law, enacted in 2002, that encouraged school districts to set up programs to combat bullying but did not mandate it. The new law requires training for most public school teachers, administrators and other employees on how to spot bullying and mandates that all districts form a school safety team to review complaints. School districts will be graded by the state on their efforts to combat the problem.
Under the Anti Bullying Bill of Rights, administrators who do not investigate reported incidents of bullying will be disciplined, while students who bully could be suspended or expelled. School employees will also be required to report all incidents they learn of, whether they took place in or outside of school. The effective implementation of this law should serve to provide children and youth with a sense of safety and freedom from being intimidated or harassed.
The Obama administration has joined the efforts to combat bullying. His administration is directing resources for the express purpose of reducing bullying in schools and to raising awareness around its ramifications, and, of course, to countering its negative impact. Toward that end, the White House convened a conference on preventing bullying, on Thursday, March 11, 2011. The Obama administration launched of a new website,http://www.stopbullying.gov, devoted to bullying prevention. There are other resources available to combat bullying including but not limited to: the Cyberbullying Research Center website.
The Cyberbullying Research Center website provides information about the nature, extent, causes, and consequences of cyber bullying among adolescents. The Center’s overarching goal is to bring sound research about cyber bullying to the forefront; and serve as a clearinghouse of information concerning the use and misuse technology by adolescents. (Cyberbullying Research Center).
For further information on cyber bulling, there are several websites you can visit including but not limited: http://www.fightcrime.org;http://www.bullypolice.org; http://www.healthline.com;http://www.cyberbullying.us; http://www.stopbullying.org;http://www.stopbullying.gov; http://www.isafe.org ; and others.
Source(s): §2 – C.18A:37-13.1 §1 – C.18A:37-13.2 §16 – C.18A:37-15.3 §§17; http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/AL10/122_.PDF. FightCrime.org; Bully Police USA, Inc.; Healthline.com; Politics Daily;MyFoxPhilly.com;NJ.com; Cyber Research Center; Stop Bullying, Inc.; i-Safe, Inc.; “NJ Assembly, Senate Passes “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights’ in Wake of Tyler Clementi’s Death” November 22, 2010, NJ.com; “Rutgers Student Tyler Clementi Commits Suicide After Video Voyeurism”, October 5, 2010, Star Ledger.
Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art
The law enforcement community has responded to this growing phenomenon by seeking to diligently enforce the anti-bullying laws and working with the community to raise awareness about this pressing problem. Additionally, students, parents, educators, administrators, some elected officials and other concerned citizens have been advocating for better laws to address this growing problem. Their collective advocacy efforts have been relatively successful nationwide.
After the death of Tyler Clementi, New Jersey enacted an “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights”. New Jersey’s recently enacted “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights” is intended to eliminate loopholes in the state’s first anti-bullying law, enacted in 2002, that encouraged school districts to set up programs to combat bullying but did not mandate it. The new law requires training for most public school teachers, administrators and other employees on how to spot bullying and mandates that all districts form a school safety team to review complaints. School districts will be graded by the state on their efforts to combat the problem.
Under the Anti Bullying Bill of Rights, administrators who do not investigate reported incidents of bullying will be disciplined, while students who bully could be suspended or expelled. School employees will also be required to report all incidents they learn of, whether they took place in or outside of school. The effective implementation of this law should serve to provide children and youth with a sense of safety and freedom from being intimidated or harassed.
The Obama administration has joined the efforts to combat bullying. His administration is directing resources for the express purpose of reducing bullying in schools and to raising awareness around its ramifications, and, of course, to countering its negative impact. Toward that end, the White House convened a conference on preventing bullying, on Thursday, March 11, 2011. The Obama administration launched of a new website,http://www.stopbullying.gov, devoted to bullying prevention. There are other resources available to combat bullying including but not limited to: the Cyberbullying Research Center website.
The Cyberbullying Research Center website provides information about the nature, extent, causes, and consequences of cyber bullying among adolescents. The Center’s overarching goal is to bring sound research about cyber bullying to the forefront; and serve as a clearinghouse of information concerning the use and misuse technology by adolescents. (Cyberbullying Research Center).
For further information on cyber bulling, there are several websites you can visit including but not limited: http://www.fightcrime.org;http://www.bullypolice.org; http://www.healthline.com;http://www.cyberbullying.us; http://www.stopbullying.org;http://www.stopbullying.gov; http://www.isafe.org ; and others.
Source(s): §2 – C.18A:37-13.1 §1 – C.18A:37-13.2 §16 – C.18A:37-15.3 §§17; http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/AL10/122_.PDF. FightCrime.org; Bully Police USA, Inc.; Healthline.com; Politics Daily;MyFoxPhilly.com;NJ.com; Cyber Research Center; Stop Bullying, Inc.; i-Safe, Inc.; “NJ Assembly, Senate Passes “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights’ in Wake of Tyler Clementi’s Death” November 22, 2010, NJ.com; “Rutgers Student Tyler Clementi Commits Suicide After Video Voyeurism”, October 5, 2010, Star Ledger.
Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art
Congressman Paul Ryan for U.S. Vice President: Good or Bad Choice?
What does a Romney-Ryan future for working families look like? Well, lets start by looking at Congressman Ryan’s Budget Plan passed by the Republican dominated U.S. House of Representatives. Congressman Ryan entitled his budget plan “The Path to Prosperity,” which opponents refer to as the “Road to Ruin”. When reviewing the Ryan Budget Plan, opponents ask the Romney-Ryan ticket, Haven’t you learned trickle down economics did not and will not work? Many assert that Congressman Ryan’s Budget Plan gives us great insight into what the future of working families would look like under President Romney.
Since Mitt Romney’s announcement of his running mate for the 2012 Presidential Election this weekend, the Democrats and others have been carefully reviewing Paul Ryan’s voting record in Congress for the last fourteen years. Both fiscal conservatives and Democrats are pleased with Governor Romney’s selection of Congressman Ryan as his running mate but for very different reasons.
After Governor Romney’s running mate announcement, Romney has made headlines and donations have poured in from all over the country. Congressman Paul Ryan’s selection as Romney’s running mate has drawn a clear distinction between President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney’s vision of the road to financial recovery for our nation.
Many people have asked after reviewing the Ryan Budget Plan where is the shared sacrifice? Independent economists have reported that the Ryan Budget is not a pro-growth document. In fact, economist warn that under the Ryan Plan that we, as a nation, would lose over a million jobs.
In Donna Jablonski’s recent article she asks the question, Do you remember the budget plan written by vice presidential contender Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), entitled “The Path to Prosperity,” which opponents refer to as the “Road to Ruin”. Ryan’s Budget Plan gives voters a great insight into the Romney-Ryan tickets position on issues important to working families.
In case we have forgotten what was in the Ryan Budget Plan, Jablonski provides us with a reminder of the impact of the Plan on working families. According to Jablonski, the list of consequences from the Ryan Budget Plan which appears below is drawn from works which were prepared by the Center for American Progress[i]. The Center for American Progress’ work indicates that the Ryan Budget Plan if enacted would do the following:
1. “It caters to the 1%. Ryan’s proposed tax cuts for the rich are larger than the windfall they received from former President George W. Bush.”
2. “It ends Medicare as we know it. The budget would move toward a privatization of Medicare…and anyone new to the Medicare program could see costs rise by nearly $6,000 by 2050.”
3. “It eliminates the health care safety net. The budget would cost 47 million people their health insurance benefits over the next decade.”
4. “It increases unemployment. The House budget seeks to balance the deficit on the backs of unemployed Americans, whose ranks would increase under the plan.”
5. “It threatens our economic competitiveness. The plan slashes $871 billion from government investments in education, job training, scientific research and transportation infrastructure over the next decade.”
6. “It showers money on Big Oil. The budget would continue to shower oil companies with $40 billion in tax breaks over 10 years.”
7. “It devastates Social Security. The House budget would cut Social Security benefits for most recipients, while giving the wealthy a windfall.”
8. “It shortchanges K–12 education. The budget proposal lumps spending on education, social programs and training into a category targeted with a 20 percent cut.”
9. “It shortchanges higher education. Low-income and middle-class students…may find it harder to get financial aid: The budget proposes big cuts to the Pell Grant program.”
10. “It ignores the wishes of the American people. About two-thirds of Americans think the rich should pay higher taxes. And 70 percent believe Medicare should continue operating as it does currently….The plan ignores the will of the people, favoring the wealthy while ending Medicare as we know it.”
When discussing his budget plan, Congressman Ryan said his budget focused on cutting spending rather than raising revenue because “spending’s the problem.”
If government spending continues to grow, he said, “You’ll end up shutting down the American dream, the American economy.”
By a partisan vote of 228 to 191, the House passed Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, which as you can see calls for steep spending limits and dramatic changes to Medicare. Ten Republicans voted against the bill, and no Democrats voted for it.
It is very important for the electorate to know the candidates’ positions on key issues confronting working families in the 2012 Presidential Race. Romney’s selection of Ryan as his running mate for the 2012 presidential election highlights that this race is all about choices. Choices about whether we, as a nation, will invest in good jobs under President Obama or give tax breaks to rich Americans and large corporations under Mitt Romney. Choices about investing in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, good schools, and higher education or whether we have decided to
turn back the clock and repeat the policies that caused the crisis we are currently confronting.
With that said, nowhere are these choices more glaring than in Mitt Romney’s recent selection of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. If Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan win the White House in 2012, millions of working families, seniors, people with disabilities and children could loose their social insurance (i.e. Medicare, etc.).
As stated in the Huffington Post, even, “David Stockman, a former budget director under President Ronald Reagan, derided the budget plan of Mitt Romney’s vice presidential pick in an op-ed in The New York Times Tuesday.” “Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big
Government and giving tax cuts to ‘job creators’ (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse,” “Stockman wrote in the op-ed, later adding: “Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices.”
Sources: AFL-CIO Action Alert, 08/13/2012, “What’s Wrong with Paul Ryan?” , Donna Jablonski, Political Action/Legislation. Stephanie Condon, CBSNews.com., March 29, 2012. www.americanprogress.org. Huffington Post Business Brief, “Ex-Reagan Budget Director: Ryan Budget ‘Is Devoid Of Credible Math Or Hard Policy Choices’”, 8/14/2012. SEUI Action Alert, 08/14/2012. “Koch brothers have Paul Ryan’s back,” Politico, August 11, 2012 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278940&id=48818-18765278-9EQdIFx&t=17
Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art
[i] The Center for American Progress (CAP) is an independent nonpartisan educational institute dedicated to improving the
lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action.
Building on the achievements of progressive pioneers such as Teddy Roosevelt and Martin Luther King, their work addresses 21st-century challenges such as energy, national security, economic growth and opportunity, immigration, education, and health care.
The Center for American Progress develops new policy ideas, critique the policy that stems from conservative values, challenge the
media to cover the issues that truly matter, and shape the national debate.
Founded in 2003 by John Podesta to provide long-term leadership and support to the progressive movement, CAP is headed by Neera Tanden and based in Washington, D.C.
Since Mitt Romney’s announcement of his running mate for the 2012 Presidential Election this weekend, the Democrats and others have been carefully reviewing Paul Ryan’s voting record in Congress for the last fourteen years. Both fiscal conservatives and Democrats are pleased with Governor Romney’s selection of Congressman Ryan as his running mate but for very different reasons.
After Governor Romney’s running mate announcement, Romney has made headlines and donations have poured in from all over the country. Congressman Paul Ryan’s selection as Romney’s running mate has drawn a clear distinction between President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney’s vision of the road to financial recovery for our nation.
Many people have asked after reviewing the Ryan Budget Plan where is the shared sacrifice? Independent economists have reported that the Ryan Budget is not a pro-growth document. In fact, economist warn that under the Ryan Plan that we, as a nation, would lose over a million jobs.
In Donna Jablonski’s recent article she asks the question, Do you remember the budget plan written by vice presidential contender Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), entitled “The Path to Prosperity,” which opponents refer to as the “Road to Ruin”. Ryan’s Budget Plan gives voters a great insight into the Romney-Ryan tickets position on issues important to working families.
In case we have forgotten what was in the Ryan Budget Plan, Jablonski provides us with a reminder of the impact of the Plan on working families. According to Jablonski, the list of consequences from the Ryan Budget Plan which appears below is drawn from works which were prepared by the Center for American Progress[i]. The Center for American Progress’ work indicates that the Ryan Budget Plan if enacted would do the following:
1. “It caters to the 1%. Ryan’s proposed tax cuts for the rich are larger than the windfall they received from former President George W. Bush.”
2. “It ends Medicare as we know it. The budget would move toward a privatization of Medicare…and anyone new to the Medicare program could see costs rise by nearly $6,000 by 2050.”
3. “It eliminates the health care safety net. The budget would cost 47 million people their health insurance benefits over the next decade.”
4. “It increases unemployment. The House budget seeks to balance the deficit on the backs of unemployed Americans, whose ranks would increase under the plan.”
5. “It threatens our economic competitiveness. The plan slashes $871 billion from government investments in education, job training, scientific research and transportation infrastructure over the next decade.”
6. “It showers money on Big Oil. The budget would continue to shower oil companies with $40 billion in tax breaks over 10 years.”
7. “It devastates Social Security. The House budget would cut Social Security benefits for most recipients, while giving the wealthy a windfall.”
8. “It shortchanges K–12 education. The budget proposal lumps spending on education, social programs and training into a category targeted with a 20 percent cut.”
9. “It shortchanges higher education. Low-income and middle-class students…may find it harder to get financial aid: The budget proposes big cuts to the Pell Grant program.”
10. “It ignores the wishes of the American people. About two-thirds of Americans think the rich should pay higher taxes. And 70 percent believe Medicare should continue operating as it does currently….The plan ignores the will of the people, favoring the wealthy while ending Medicare as we know it.”
When discussing his budget plan, Congressman Ryan said his budget focused on cutting spending rather than raising revenue because “spending’s the problem.”
If government spending continues to grow, he said, “You’ll end up shutting down the American dream, the American economy.”
By a partisan vote of 228 to 191, the House passed Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, which as you can see calls for steep spending limits and dramatic changes to Medicare. Ten Republicans voted against the bill, and no Democrats voted for it.
It is very important for the electorate to know the candidates’ positions on key issues confronting working families in the 2012 Presidential Race. Romney’s selection of Ryan as his running mate for the 2012 presidential election highlights that this race is all about choices. Choices about whether we, as a nation, will invest in good jobs under President Obama or give tax breaks to rich Americans and large corporations under Mitt Romney. Choices about investing in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, good schools, and higher education or whether we have decided to
turn back the clock and repeat the policies that caused the crisis we are currently confronting.
With that said, nowhere are these choices more glaring than in Mitt Romney’s recent selection of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. If Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan win the White House in 2012, millions of working families, seniors, people with disabilities and children could loose their social insurance (i.e. Medicare, etc.).
As stated in the Huffington Post, even, “David Stockman, a former budget director under President Ronald Reagan, derided the budget plan of Mitt Romney’s vice presidential pick in an op-ed in The New York Times Tuesday.” “Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big
Government and giving tax cuts to ‘job creators’ (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse,” “Stockman wrote in the op-ed, later adding: “Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices.”
Sources: AFL-CIO Action Alert, 08/13/2012, “What’s Wrong with Paul Ryan?” , Donna Jablonski, Political Action/Legislation. Stephanie Condon, CBSNews.com., March 29, 2012. www.americanprogress.org. Huffington Post Business Brief, “Ex-Reagan Budget Director: Ryan Budget ‘Is Devoid Of Credible Math Or Hard Policy Choices’”, 8/14/2012. SEUI Action Alert, 08/14/2012. “Koch brothers have Paul Ryan’s back,” Politico, August 11, 2012 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278940&id=48818-18765278-9EQdIFx&t=17
Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art
[i] The Center for American Progress (CAP) is an independent nonpartisan educational institute dedicated to improving the
lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action.
Building on the achievements of progressive pioneers such as Teddy Roosevelt and Martin Luther King, their work addresses 21st-century challenges such as energy, national security, economic growth and opportunity, immigration, education, and health care.
The Center for American Progress develops new policy ideas, critique the policy that stems from conservative values, challenge the
media to cover the issues that truly matter, and shape the national debate.
Founded in 2003 by John Podesta to provide long-term leadership and support to the progressive movement, CAP is headed by Neera Tanden and based in Washington, D.C.
Being Poor Can Land You In Jail
In Sojourners For Justice’s Action Alert, we are reminded that living in poverty has always been a struggle, but in Alabama being poor could land you
in prison.
According to a recent story in The New York Times, rural Alabama resident Gina Ray was locked up for over a month because she could not pay fees and fines related to minor traffic offenses. [1] Speeding while being poor should not land someone in jail. These punishments simply do not fit the crime nor is this legal action in the “public good”. This type of use of legal system simply helps the companies that profit from people’s misery.
With that said, please tell Alabama’s governor that the welfare of the citizens of his state must come before profits. Being poor should not be a crime.
It has been reported that Alabama, like many states, has made huge increases in the fees it levies on those caught up in its criminal justice system—even for minor traffic offenses. This troubling trend is compounded by the growing privatization of the criminal “justice system”; when poor citizens cannot pay the fines and fees that serve to significantly increase a private contractor’s bottom line, they often land in jail, where more fees are assessed. against the already indigent defendant. One judge called the situation an appalling “extortion racket.” [2]
With that said, it is important to tell Alabama’s governor to call for legislation to end this immoral practice. As aptly stated by Sojourners For Justice, “Jesus proclaimed release for the captives. Scripture calls us to care about justicefor the poor. Your assistance in this pressing matter is urgently needed.
Source(s): [1] “Poor Land in Jail as Companies Add Huge Fees for Probation,” The New York Times, July 2, 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/us/probation-fees-multiply-as-companies-profit.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
[2] “Judge in Alabama Halts Private Probation,” The New York Times, July 13, 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/us/judge-in-alabama-halts-private-probation.html?_r=2
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
in prison.
According to a recent story in The New York Times, rural Alabama resident Gina Ray was locked up for over a month because she could not pay fees and fines related to minor traffic offenses. [1] Speeding while being poor should not land someone in jail. These punishments simply do not fit the crime nor is this legal action in the “public good”. This type of use of legal system simply helps the companies that profit from people’s misery.
With that said, please tell Alabama’s governor that the welfare of the citizens of his state must come before profits. Being poor should not be a crime.
It has been reported that Alabama, like many states, has made huge increases in the fees it levies on those caught up in its criminal justice system—even for minor traffic offenses. This troubling trend is compounded by the growing privatization of the criminal “justice system”; when poor citizens cannot pay the fines and fees that serve to significantly increase a private contractor’s bottom line, they often land in jail, where more fees are assessed. against the already indigent defendant. One judge called the situation an appalling “extortion racket.” [2]
With that said, it is important to tell Alabama’s governor to call for legislation to end this immoral practice. As aptly stated by Sojourners For Justice, “Jesus proclaimed release for the captives. Scripture calls us to care about justicefor the poor. Your assistance in this pressing matter is urgently needed.
Source(s): [1] “Poor Land in Jail as Companies Add Huge Fees for Probation,” The New York Times, July 2, 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/us/probation-fees-multiply-as-companies-profit.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
[2] “Judge in Alabama Halts Private Probation,” The New York Times, July 13, 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/us/judge-in-alabama-halts-private-probation.html?_r=2
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
Georgia's Anti-Immigration Law
Georgia followed Arizona’s lead and passed stringent new legislation targeting illegal immigrants and those who harbor them. Supporters of the new law state that Georgia enacted anti-immigration law (House Bill 87) with the overarching goal of saving money.
Supporters of the anti-immigration law contend that illegal immigrants are burdening Georgia’s hospitals, jails and public schools. Further, they assert that illegal immigrants are taking jobs in a period of record unemployment in the State. It was clear on its face that this piece of legislation would not have the anticipated result of saving money for the state or opening up jobs for citizens that were unemployed.
Prior to the passage of the law, there were rallies that opposed the legislation and urged the governor to veto the bill. Democrats vigorously fought House Bill 87 arguing that it would damage Georgia’s agricultural and tourism industries and force the state to defend itself against costly court battles. It was passed. Georgia’s Governor Nathan Deal (Republican) signed the anti-immigration legislation into law.
In response to this poorly thought out piece of legislation, thousands Georgia residents rallied against the recently enacted Georgia anti-immigration law
House Bill 87. The Georgia Anti-Immigration law has had serious economic consequences for the state. It has been reported that Georgia’s tough
anti-illegal-immigrant law drove a sizable fraction of the migrant labor pool out of the state, and as a result, “millions of dollars’ worth of blueberries,
onions, melons and other crops [are] unharvested and rotting in the fields.”[i]
“The jobs the migrants did paid an average of eight ($8)/hour, without benefits, a wage that is so low that the state’s probationed prisoners have turned it
down.[ii] Guest-writing in the Atlantic’s economics section, Adam Ozimek doesn’t believe that the farms would be viable if they paid wages that legal American workers would take: “it’s quite possible that the wages required to get workers to do the job are so high that
it’s no longer profitable for farmers to plant the crops in the first place.”
[iii]
Georgia’s tough anti-illegal-immigrant law has created a labor shortage in one the state’s largest industries.[iv] Hopefully, it is clear to the supporters
of this poorly thought out piece of legislation that this law should be repealed. If not, it is certain that there will be a case filed by the ACLU
and Southern Poverty Law Center barring its implementation in Georgia.
Sources: “Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011″; “Georgia’s anti-immigrant law leaves millions in crops rotting in the fields” Cory
Doctorow, BOINGBOING, Wednesday, Jun 22, 2011. HB57- Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011, Dustin, Georgia
Politico, January 28, 2011. georgiabulletin.org. “Local ministers: HB 87 is NOT what Jesus would do” Gwynedd Stuart, Creative Loafing, April 25,
2011.
[1] “Georgia’s anti-immigrant law leaves millions in crops rotting in the fields” Cory Doctorow, BOINGBOING, Wednesday, Jun 22, 2011.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
Supporters of the anti-immigration law contend that illegal immigrants are burdening Georgia’s hospitals, jails and public schools. Further, they assert that illegal immigrants are taking jobs in a period of record unemployment in the State. It was clear on its face that this piece of legislation would not have the anticipated result of saving money for the state or opening up jobs for citizens that were unemployed.
Prior to the passage of the law, there were rallies that opposed the legislation and urged the governor to veto the bill. Democrats vigorously fought House Bill 87 arguing that it would damage Georgia’s agricultural and tourism industries and force the state to defend itself against costly court battles. It was passed. Georgia’s Governor Nathan Deal (Republican) signed the anti-immigration legislation into law.
In response to this poorly thought out piece of legislation, thousands Georgia residents rallied against the recently enacted Georgia anti-immigration law
House Bill 87. The Georgia Anti-Immigration law has had serious economic consequences for the state. It has been reported that Georgia’s tough
anti-illegal-immigrant law drove a sizable fraction of the migrant labor pool out of the state, and as a result, “millions of dollars’ worth of blueberries,
onions, melons and other crops [are] unharvested and rotting in the fields.”[i]
“The jobs the migrants did paid an average of eight ($8)/hour, without benefits, a wage that is so low that the state’s probationed prisoners have turned it
down.[ii] Guest-writing in the Atlantic’s economics section, Adam Ozimek doesn’t believe that the farms would be viable if they paid wages that legal American workers would take: “it’s quite possible that the wages required to get workers to do the job are so high that
it’s no longer profitable for farmers to plant the crops in the first place.”
[iii]
Georgia’s tough anti-illegal-immigrant law has created a labor shortage in one the state’s largest industries.[iv] Hopefully, it is clear to the supporters
of this poorly thought out piece of legislation that this law should be repealed. If not, it is certain that there will be a case filed by the ACLU
and Southern Poverty Law Center barring its implementation in Georgia.
Sources: “Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011″; “Georgia’s anti-immigrant law leaves millions in crops rotting in the fields” Cory
Doctorow, BOINGBOING, Wednesday, Jun 22, 2011. HB57- Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011, Dustin, Georgia
Politico, January 28, 2011. georgiabulletin.org. “Local ministers: HB 87 is NOT what Jesus would do” Gwynedd Stuart, Creative Loafing, April 25,
2011.
[1] “Georgia’s anti-immigrant law leaves millions in crops rotting in the fields” Cory Doctorow, BOINGBOING, Wednesday, Jun 22, 2011.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
The "War" on Unemployment
We, as a nation, are several years into a job crisis. Reports of highly disappointing employment gains highlight the urgent need for a national plan to grow the economy. The unemployment numbers throughout the country mandate legislative, tangible action to address the crisis. In response to the dismal unemployment figures, an open letter with almost two thousand (2,000) signatures was sent by the National Urban League to the President and Congress
urging their support in the “War on Unemployment”.
For the past year, this blog has focused primarily on recently introduced pieces of legislation and other activities undertaken to address the current economic crisis with a focus on addressing unemployment and the resulting record bankruptcies, foreclosures, growth in homelessness and food insecurity. Below are several pieces of recent legislation which were introduced to address the unemployment crisis:
Promoting Partnerships to Transform Opportunities Act (H.R. 2611)
The Promoting Partnerships to Transform Opportunities Act (H.R. 2611) is one such piece of legislation. In response to record employment, the Promoting Partnerships to Transform Opportunities Act (H.R. 2611) was introduced on July 21, 2011, by US Representative Raul Grijalva (S-AZ7). This piece of legislation would “…amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to prepare people with multiple barriers to employment to enter the workforce by providing such people with support services, job training, and education, and for other purposes. This new piece of legislation, H.R. 2611, has four (4) cosponsors. It is in the first step of the legislative process.
H.R. 2935
Last year, another piece of legislation was introduced to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to permit the establishment of Job Corps centers in the territories of the United States. On June 24, 2011, H.R. 2935 was introduced by Delegate Gregorio Sablan (D-MP) to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. H.R. 2935 has 26 cosponsors. It is also in the first step of the legislative process.
Like most Americans, some members of congress assert that, “It is time for action on the most important issue of our time—economic opportunity through jobs! Every American deserves the right to be gainfully employed or own a successful business”—said U.S. Representative Cleaver. I agree. As a result, I just signed a petition that says “America wants to work. It’s time to move on from manufactured crises and focus on jobs.
Lamont Cranston reminds us that, ” History will judge us either for our activism or apathy. The choice is ours, but the impact of our decision is ultimately on our children.” If the pressing social issues covered in these posts are important to you, please contact your elected officials in Washington, DC. For further information on these pieces of legislation, please visit www.govtrack.us. www.opencongress.org.
Source(s): National Urban League. US Rep. Cleaver’s FaceBook page. www.govtrack.us. www.opencongress.org Lamont Cranston. www.grio.com. www.thecincinnatiherald.com. www.theblackamerica.com. AFL-CIO.
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
urging their support in the “War on Unemployment”.
For the past year, this blog has focused primarily on recently introduced pieces of legislation and other activities undertaken to address the current economic crisis with a focus on addressing unemployment and the resulting record bankruptcies, foreclosures, growth in homelessness and food insecurity. Below are several pieces of recent legislation which were introduced to address the unemployment crisis:
Promoting Partnerships to Transform Opportunities Act (H.R. 2611)
The Promoting Partnerships to Transform Opportunities Act (H.R. 2611) is one such piece of legislation. In response to record employment, the Promoting Partnerships to Transform Opportunities Act (H.R. 2611) was introduced on July 21, 2011, by US Representative Raul Grijalva (S-AZ7). This piece of legislation would “…amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to prepare people with multiple barriers to employment to enter the workforce by providing such people with support services, job training, and education, and for other purposes. This new piece of legislation, H.R. 2611, has four (4) cosponsors. It is in the first step of the legislative process.
H.R. 2935
Last year, another piece of legislation was introduced to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to permit the establishment of Job Corps centers in the territories of the United States. On June 24, 2011, H.R. 2935 was introduced by Delegate Gregorio Sablan (D-MP) to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. H.R. 2935 has 26 cosponsors. It is also in the first step of the legislative process.
Like most Americans, some members of congress assert that, “It is time for action on the most important issue of our time—economic opportunity through jobs! Every American deserves the right to be gainfully employed or own a successful business”—said U.S. Representative Cleaver. I agree. As a result, I just signed a petition that says “America wants to work. It’s time to move on from manufactured crises and focus on jobs.
Lamont Cranston reminds us that, ” History will judge us either for our activism or apathy. The choice is ours, but the impact of our decision is ultimately on our children.” If the pressing social issues covered in these posts are important to you, please contact your elected officials in Washington, DC. For further information on these pieces of legislation, please visit www.govtrack.us. www.opencongress.org.
Source(s): National Urban League. US Rep. Cleaver’s FaceBook page. www.govtrack.us. www.opencongress.org Lamont Cranston. www.grio.com. www.thecincinnatiherald.com. www.theblackamerica.com. AFL-CIO.
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
Rebuilding the American Dream: One Person at a Time
People from all walks of life have come together with the singular purpose of reclaiming the American Dream for all. In every congressional district, “Rebuild the American Dream” meetings are being held in response to the challenges faced with the federal budget. It has been reported that the American Dream Movement is growing stronger by the day.
As a participant at a Rebuild the American Dream meetings, I understand that the meetings held across the country are only the first of many steps on the way to regaining the dream for all. Participants are committed to ensuring that once again Americans are: employed, can afford to go to college, retire with
dignity, and secure a future for their children and their communities.
This summer, important action is being taken to bring more people into the political process. In addition to the “Rebuild the American Dream” meetings,
there were voter empowerment campaigns held this month across the country. There are three (3) stages in the voter empowerment process: registration,
education, and mobilization. It has been reported that volunteers in all fifty (50) states were knocking on doors and registering new voters. The overarching
goal of the voter empowerment campaigns lead by the Democratic Party is three-fold: to bring more people into the political process; to make certain that every voter who wants to exercise their right is registered; to ensure the reelection of President Barack Obama and that Democrats take back the United States House of Representatives.
Get involved. Take action that can and will change the future. If you are not already registered, get registered to vote. Seize the opportunity to cast your vote. As was aptly stated by President Johnson when discussing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, “The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.” Your vote can be decisive, stand up, speak out, be heard— participate in the “Rebuild the American Dream” movement and vote!
For further information on the “Rebuild the American Dream Movement”, visit www.moveon.org.
Sources:Moveon.org. Wikipedia.
Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art
As a participant at a Rebuild the American Dream meetings, I understand that the meetings held across the country are only the first of many steps on the way to regaining the dream for all. Participants are committed to ensuring that once again Americans are: employed, can afford to go to college, retire with
dignity, and secure a future for their children and their communities.
This summer, important action is being taken to bring more people into the political process. In addition to the “Rebuild the American Dream” meetings,
there were voter empowerment campaigns held this month across the country. There are three (3) stages in the voter empowerment process: registration,
education, and mobilization. It has been reported that volunteers in all fifty (50) states were knocking on doors and registering new voters. The overarching
goal of the voter empowerment campaigns lead by the Democratic Party is three-fold: to bring more people into the political process; to make certain that every voter who wants to exercise their right is registered; to ensure the reelection of President Barack Obama and that Democrats take back the United States House of Representatives.
Get involved. Take action that can and will change the future. If you are not already registered, get registered to vote. Seize the opportunity to cast your vote. As was aptly stated by President Johnson when discussing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, “The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.” Your vote can be decisive, stand up, speak out, be heard— participate in the “Rebuild the American Dream” movement and vote!
For further information on the “Rebuild the American Dream Movement”, visit www.moveon.org.
Sources:Moveon.org. Wikipedia.
Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art
Increasing Hunger in America is the Wrong Direction for Our Country
Are we a nation that lets our elected officials in Washington DC take meals away from hungry children and seniors? Today is a national call-in day to show
Congress that increasing hunger in America is unacceptable. Will you join the movement to stop additional drastic cuts to SNAP?
Tomorrow, the House Agriculture Committee will vote on a Farm Bill proposal that cuts SNAP by over $16 billion. Were you aware that more than one (1) in seven (7) Americans receives SNAP benefits?
What do the proposed drastic cuts to SNAP mean for hungry Americans?
- 500,000 households would see their benefits cut by $90 per month;
- 2 to 3 million individuals would lose their food assistance entirely;
- Nearly 300,000 kids would lose free school meals.
More than one (1) in five (5) children lives in poverty and nearly one (1) in four (4) is at risk of hunger. Often, I write about pending legislation which impacts indigent children, youth, and families with the goal of encouraging the reader to act to protect vulnerable families. I know that ensuring America’s children and youth are connected to healthy food where they live, learn and play is as important to you as it is to me. As a result, I am writing to you today to update on the Farm Bill.
Over twenty-five (25) percent of the children in the US under the age of six live in poverty. The poverty rate among women climbed to 14.5 percent in 2010 from 13.9 percent in 2009, the highest in 17 years. As poverty surged last year to its highest level since 1993, median household income declined, leaving the typical American household earning less in inflation-adjusted dollars than it did in 1997. One out of every six Americans is now being served by at least one government anti-poverty program. Child homelessness in the United States is now thirty-three (33) percent higher than it was back in 2007. More than 50 million Americans are now on Medicaid, the U.S. government health care program designed principally to help the poor.
Let’s tell our elected officials in Washington that increasing hunger in America is the wrong direction for our country. We cannot let there be additional drastic cuts to SNAP happen.
If agree that increasing hunger in America is the wrong direction for our country, please call your Representative Today!
Send Congress a message. Your voice can, and will, make a difference. With that said, please take these very simple steps
to help millions of vulnerable children, youth, and families across our
nation.
You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there
will be no result. ~ Gandhi
Source(s): www.congress.org. Feeding America. Action Alert
Voices for Americas Children. Action Alert Bread for the World. St. Vincent de
Paul Society. National Center on Family Homelessness.
Photo Credit:
Microsoft Clip Art
Congress that increasing hunger in America is unacceptable. Will you join the movement to stop additional drastic cuts to SNAP?
Tomorrow, the House Agriculture Committee will vote on a Farm Bill proposal that cuts SNAP by over $16 billion. Were you aware that more than one (1) in seven (7) Americans receives SNAP benefits?
What do the proposed drastic cuts to SNAP mean for hungry Americans?
- 500,000 households would see their benefits cut by $90 per month;
- 2 to 3 million individuals would lose their food assistance entirely;
- Nearly 300,000 kids would lose free school meals.
More than one (1) in five (5) children lives in poverty and nearly one (1) in four (4) is at risk of hunger. Often, I write about pending legislation which impacts indigent children, youth, and families with the goal of encouraging the reader to act to protect vulnerable families. I know that ensuring America’s children and youth are connected to healthy food where they live, learn and play is as important to you as it is to me. As a result, I am writing to you today to update on the Farm Bill.
Over twenty-five (25) percent of the children in the US under the age of six live in poverty. The poverty rate among women climbed to 14.5 percent in 2010 from 13.9 percent in 2009, the highest in 17 years. As poverty surged last year to its highest level since 1993, median household income declined, leaving the typical American household earning less in inflation-adjusted dollars than it did in 1997. One out of every six Americans is now being served by at least one government anti-poverty program. Child homelessness in the United States is now thirty-three (33) percent higher than it was back in 2007. More than 50 million Americans are now on Medicaid, the U.S. government health care program designed principally to help the poor.
Let’s tell our elected officials in Washington that increasing hunger in America is the wrong direction for our country. We cannot let there be additional drastic cuts to SNAP happen.
If agree that increasing hunger in America is the wrong direction for our country, please call your Representative Today!
Send Congress a message. Your voice can, and will, make a difference. With that said, please take these very simple steps
to help millions of vulnerable children, youth, and families across our
nation.
- Call the toll-free hotline at 877-698-8228 FREE 877-698-8228 end_of_the_skype_highlighting.
- Listen to the pre-recorded message and enter your zip code when prompted.
You will then be connected to your Representative. - State that you are a constituent and give your name and the town you are
calling from. Let them know you are calling about the Farm Bill and deliver
this important message:
- I strongly oppose cuts to SNAP and other hunger-relief programs.
- Please vote against the proposed cuts to SNAP in the House Farm Bill.
- Increasing hunger in America is the wrong direction for our
country.
You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there
will be no result. ~ Gandhi
Source(s): www.congress.org. Feeding America. Action Alert
Voices for Americas Children. Action Alert Bread for the World. St. Vincent de
Paul Society. National Center on Family Homelessness.
Photo Credit:
Microsoft Clip Art
Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act (H.R. 234 S, 1283)
For almost two decades, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) has afforded employment protected leave for workers to care for their new-born baby, sick
family members, or to recover from their own serious illnesses. It has been reported that since the enactment of FMLA millions of Americans have been able
to take up to twelve (12) weeks of unpaid leave from work. Some assert that FMLA has proven essential to achieving greater employee retention and reducing
employee turnover. The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act (H.R. 2364, S. 1283) would not change the terms of the FMLA, but rather expand its coverage to more family members.
H.R. 2364 amends the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and title 5, United States Code, to permit leave to care for a domestic partner, parent-in-law, adult child, sibling, grandchild, or grandparent who has a serious health condition, and for other purposes. While protections afforded workers under FMLA have helped millions of families, they do not show the many care-taking roles that workers may have, forcing many to choose between employment and responsibility to care for an ill family member. Many assert that all of America’s workers should be afforded the opportunity to fulfill their critically important
family and caregiver roles while continuing to contribute to our nation’s economy. This belief led US Congresswoman Maloney to introduce legislation in
the House of Representatives and Senator Durbin to introduce a similar piece of legislation in the Senate.
If this is an important issue to you, let your elected officials know about your support of this legislation. Let your voice be heard in Washington, DC. Get involved.
Sources: www.govtrack.us. www.opencongress.com. www.ifebp.org. Action Alert 9 to 5. www.lawheadlinesandnews.com/hd/index.php?=Family+Act+Leave.consultarehr.com/tag/work-family-balance/. “Bill Would Extend FMLA Benefits and Protections to Additional Family Members”, Washington DC Employment Law Update, Ilyse Schuman, July 1, 2011.
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
family members, or to recover from their own serious illnesses. It has been reported that since the enactment of FMLA millions of Americans have been able
to take up to twelve (12) weeks of unpaid leave from work. Some assert that FMLA has proven essential to achieving greater employee retention and reducing
employee turnover. The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act (H.R. 2364, S. 1283) would not change the terms of the FMLA, but rather expand its coverage to more family members.
H.R. 2364 amends the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and title 5, United States Code, to permit leave to care for a domestic partner, parent-in-law, adult child, sibling, grandchild, or grandparent who has a serious health condition, and for other purposes. While protections afforded workers under FMLA have helped millions of families, they do not show the many care-taking roles that workers may have, forcing many to choose between employment and responsibility to care for an ill family member. Many assert that all of America’s workers should be afforded the opportunity to fulfill their critically important
family and caregiver roles while continuing to contribute to our nation’s economy. This belief led US Congresswoman Maloney to introduce legislation in
the House of Representatives and Senator Durbin to introduce a similar piece of legislation in the Senate.
If this is an important issue to you, let your elected officials know about your support of this legislation. Let your voice be heard in Washington, DC. Get involved.
Sources: www.govtrack.us. www.opencongress.com. www.ifebp.org. Action Alert 9 to 5. www.lawheadlinesandnews.com/hd/index.php?=Family+Act+Leave.consultarehr.com/tag/work-family-balance/. “Bill Would Extend FMLA Benefits and Protections to Additional Family Members”, Washington DC Employment Law Update, Ilyse Schuman, July 1, 2011.
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
Why Put Children at Risk?
My question for the day is as follows: Why should one of the wealthiest nations in the world put children at Risk?
Because of the particularly challenging economic times confronting our nation, I often write about legislation designed to improve the quality of life for the most vulnerable members of society including but not limited to indigent children and youth. As a result, I have written about the 2012 Farm Bill’s Reauthorization.
More than one (1) in five (5) children lives in poverty and nearly one (1) in four (4) is at risk of hunger. Often, I write about pending legislation which impacts indigent children, youth, and families with the goal of encouraging the reader to act to protect vulnerable families. I know that ensuring America’s children and youth are connected to healthy food where they live, learn and play is as important to you as it is to me. As a result, I am writing to you today to update on the Farm Bill.
Over twenty-five (25) percent of the children in the US under the age of six live in poverty. The poverty rate among women climbed to 14.5 percent in 2010 from 13.9 percent in 2009, the highest in 17 years. As poverty surged last year to its highest level since 1993, median household income declined, leaving the typical American household earning less in inflation-adjusted dollars than it did in 1997. One out of every six Americans is now being served by at least one government anti-poverty program. Child homelessness in the United States is now thirty-three (33) percent higher than it was back in 2007. More than 50 million Americans are now on Medicaid, the U.S. government health care program designed principally to help the poor.
With that said, Congress is making progress on the 2012 Farm Bill, which provides critical federal nutrition programs like SNAP, formerly known as food stamps that helps to feed hungry kids. Were you aware that more than one (1) in seven (7) Americans receives SNAP benefits?
This week, the Farm Bill is moving in the House of Representatives. Drastic cuts to SNAP are being considered, including proposals that would result in two (2) to three (3) million Americans loosing SNAP benefits and would cause nearly three hundred (300,000) children to loose access to free school meal programs. If Congress cuts funding for this poverty relief program, it will affect millions of children and families, leaving them even more vulnerable to hunger.
Will you join me in speaking up for children right now, by asking your member of Congress in the US House of Representative to protect SNAP from any further devastating cuts? If so, please contact your Representative and ask them to not balance the budget on children and youth. Your elected officials in Washington, DC need to hear from you loud and clear, since the children who rely on SNAP are unable to speak from themselves to our elected officials.
As was recently shared in an action alert from anti-hunger programs, there are a lot of misconceptions about receives SNAP. Let's be
clear, without SNAP, many indigent families assert that their children would “probably would not have food to eat.”
For those of you that read this post and take action to prevent further cuts to SNAP, I thank you for taking action on this very important issue and lending your voice to children who cannot protect themselves.
You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result. ~ Gandhi
Source(s): No Kid Hungry Share Our Strength Action Alert. www.congress.org. Feeding America. Action Alert Voices for America's Children. Action Alert Bread for the World. St. Vincent de Paul Society. National Center on Family Homelessness.
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
Because of the particularly challenging economic times confronting our nation, I often write about legislation designed to improve the quality of life for the most vulnerable members of society including but not limited to indigent children and youth. As a result, I have written about the 2012 Farm Bill’s Reauthorization.
More than one (1) in five (5) children lives in poverty and nearly one (1) in four (4) is at risk of hunger. Often, I write about pending legislation which impacts indigent children, youth, and families with the goal of encouraging the reader to act to protect vulnerable families. I know that ensuring America’s children and youth are connected to healthy food where they live, learn and play is as important to you as it is to me. As a result, I am writing to you today to update on the Farm Bill.
Over twenty-five (25) percent of the children in the US under the age of six live in poverty. The poverty rate among women climbed to 14.5 percent in 2010 from 13.9 percent in 2009, the highest in 17 years. As poverty surged last year to its highest level since 1993, median household income declined, leaving the typical American household earning less in inflation-adjusted dollars than it did in 1997. One out of every six Americans is now being served by at least one government anti-poverty program. Child homelessness in the United States is now thirty-three (33) percent higher than it was back in 2007. More than 50 million Americans are now on Medicaid, the U.S. government health care program designed principally to help the poor.
With that said, Congress is making progress on the 2012 Farm Bill, which provides critical federal nutrition programs like SNAP, formerly known as food stamps that helps to feed hungry kids. Were you aware that more than one (1) in seven (7) Americans receives SNAP benefits?
This week, the Farm Bill is moving in the House of Representatives. Drastic cuts to SNAP are being considered, including proposals that would result in two (2) to three (3) million Americans loosing SNAP benefits and would cause nearly three hundred (300,000) children to loose access to free school meal programs. If Congress cuts funding for this poverty relief program, it will affect millions of children and families, leaving them even more vulnerable to hunger.
Will you join me in speaking up for children right now, by asking your member of Congress in the US House of Representative to protect SNAP from any further devastating cuts? If so, please contact your Representative and ask them to not balance the budget on children and youth. Your elected officials in Washington, DC need to hear from you loud and clear, since the children who rely on SNAP are unable to speak from themselves to our elected officials.
As was recently shared in an action alert from anti-hunger programs, there are a lot of misconceptions about receives SNAP. Let's be
clear, without SNAP, many indigent families assert that their children would “probably would not have food to eat.”
For those of you that read this post and take action to prevent further cuts to SNAP, I thank you for taking action on this very important issue and lending your voice to children who cannot protect themselves.
You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result. ~ Gandhi
Source(s): No Kid Hungry Share Our Strength Action Alert. www.congress.org. Feeding America. Action Alert Voices for America's Children. Action Alert Bread for the World. St. Vincent de Paul Society. National Center on Family Homelessness.
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
VAWA National Day of Action - June 26, 2012
The National Task Force to End Domestic Violence and other advocacy organizations have marked June 26, 2012, as the National Day of Action for the Reauthorization of the real Violence Against Women Act and have asked us to save the date on our calendars. It is anticipated that on or about June 26, 2012, there will be a call to action for all citizens concerned about the health and well-being of victims of domestic.
VAWA is up for reauthorization and for the first time in its history has struggled to obtain bipartisan support in both the House of Representative and the Senate. On the upcoming National Day of Action it is imperative that we tell Congress that doing nothing to bring about the passage of the real Violence Against Women Act is simply not an option. With that said, on June 26, 2012, emails, faxes, and calls to our legislators in Washington, DC will be essential and determine whether or not the Real VAWA passes.
For nearly 20 years, Congress has recognized the severity of violence against women and our need for this landmark federal law’s comprehensive approach. VAWA truly provides life-saving protections and services needed by victims and their families. It is unacceptable that this law has become politicized while three women a day are still killed by an intimate partner.
Victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and dating violence need a VAWA law that does not roll back protections for immigrant women and their families; includes protections for all victims, including the LGBT community and Native women; and directs resources to this urgent task in the most effective way possible.”
We know that all victims need protection and it is important to tell the world why on the National Day of Action. Congress must pass the real Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which protects all victims of domestic violence. As aptly stated by the National Task Force to End Domestic Violence, doing nothing is not an option with VAWA.
Calls to our legislators in Washington, DC are essential and will determine whether or not the Real VAWA passes. With that said, the National Task Force to End Domestic Violence has issued “A Call to Action!” on Tuesday, June 26th to reauthorize the real VAWA. In these final days Congress must see a groundswell that cannot be ignored.
Every person concerned about the health and well-being of women is needed now to raise their voice and tell Congress not to go backward but move forward to reauthorize the Real VAWA. It is important to get a Violence Against Women Act passed that protects ALL victims. The calls, emails, letters, and tweets to date have worked and now is the time to take it a step further. It is important to show Congress how important the real Violence Against Women Act is to victims, survivors, advocates, and concerned citizens across the country.
Please save the date for a National Day of Action – June 26, 2012 on your calendar and tell your friends, families and everyone you know who cares about eradicating domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. All victims need protection and it is important to tell the world why on the National Day of Action. Congress must pass a Violence Against Women Act!
Don’t forget to tweet about VAWA using the hashtags #ReauthorizeVAWA, #RealVAWA and #VAWA.
Tell Congress doing nothing is simply not an option!
Source: National Task Force to End Domestic Violence
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
VAWA is up for reauthorization and for the first time in its history has struggled to obtain bipartisan support in both the House of Representative and the Senate. On the upcoming National Day of Action it is imperative that we tell Congress that doing nothing to bring about the passage of the real Violence Against Women Act is simply not an option. With that said, on June 26, 2012, emails, faxes, and calls to our legislators in Washington, DC will be essential and determine whether or not the Real VAWA passes.
For nearly 20 years, Congress has recognized the severity of violence against women and our need for this landmark federal law’s comprehensive approach. VAWA truly provides life-saving protections and services needed by victims and their families. It is unacceptable that this law has become politicized while three women a day are still killed by an intimate partner.
Victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and dating violence need a VAWA law that does not roll back protections for immigrant women and their families; includes protections for all victims, including the LGBT community and Native women; and directs resources to this urgent task in the most effective way possible.”
We know that all victims need protection and it is important to tell the world why on the National Day of Action. Congress must pass the real Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which protects all victims of domestic violence. As aptly stated by the National Task Force to End Domestic Violence, doing nothing is not an option with VAWA.
Calls to our legislators in Washington, DC are essential and will determine whether or not the Real VAWA passes. With that said, the National Task Force to End Domestic Violence has issued “A Call to Action!” on Tuesday, June 26th to reauthorize the real VAWA. In these final days Congress must see a groundswell that cannot be ignored.
Every person concerned about the health and well-being of women is needed now to raise their voice and tell Congress not to go backward but move forward to reauthorize the Real VAWA. It is important to get a Violence Against Women Act passed that protects ALL victims. The calls, emails, letters, and tweets to date have worked and now is the time to take it a step further. It is important to show Congress how important the real Violence Against Women Act is to victims, survivors, advocates, and concerned citizens across the country.
Please save the date for a National Day of Action – June 26, 2012 on your calendar and tell your friends, families and everyone you know who cares about eradicating domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. All victims need protection and it is important to tell the world why on the National Day of Action. Congress must pass a Violence Against Women Act!
Don’t forget to tweet about VAWA using the hashtags #ReauthorizeVAWA, #RealVAWA and #VAWA.
Tell Congress doing nothing is simply not an option!
Source: National Task Force to End Domestic Violence
Photo Credit: Microsoft Clip Art
Tell Congress To Pass the International Violence Against Women Act (I- VAWA),
H.R. 5905
The House of Representatives has re-introduced the International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA), H.R. 5905. I-VAWA calls for a comprehensive plan to prevent and respond to gender-based violence globally. First championed in 2007 by then-Senator Joe Biden, I-VAWA has not had an easy road in Congress.
This landmark legislation would hold perpetrators accountable, prevent, and respond to gender-based violence. When one out of three women worldwide will be physically, sexually or otherwise abused in her lifetime (with rates as high as 70 percent in some countries),I-VAWA addresses these alarming statistics by providing preventative and response measures such as: education and economic opportunities, social norm change campaigns, health and support services for survivors, and legal and judicial training programs that seek accountability.
Please join me in encouraging Congress to pass the International Violence against Women Act (I-VAWA), H.R. 5905.
Source(s): Futures Without Violence. congress.org. govtrack.us.
Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art
This landmark legislation would hold perpetrators accountable, prevent, and respond to gender-based violence. When one out of three women worldwide will be physically, sexually or otherwise abused in her lifetime (with rates as high as 70 percent in some countries),I-VAWA addresses these alarming statistics by providing preventative and response measures such as: education and economic opportunities, social norm change campaigns, health and support services for survivors, and legal and judicial training programs that seek accountability.
Please join me in encouraging Congress to pass the International Violence against Women Act (I-VAWA), H.R. 5905.
Source(s): Futures Without Violence. congress.org. govtrack.us.
Photo credit: Microsoft Clip Art
