A student is fed up with discrimination

Throughout the last few weeks, in most of classes, we have been talking about the unfair treatment of African Americans in America today. In particular, the classes have been discussing the over incarceration rate of African Americans in prisons compared to White Americans along with police brutality issues. This is a very significant issue in todays society, and is one that makes me very upset because the inhumane treatment of Americans still happening in 2020 is just not right. Hearing the facts about how African Americans were treated in the 1950’s time period, and surrounding time periods, and how similar they are being treated today in some areas is just dumbfounding and infuriating to me. 

I feel as though there needs to be more restrictions and a stronger watch on certain states where authorities are still blatantly discriminating against people of color. There have been states in the past few years, and possibly still this year, that have laws and actions in place to prevent people from voting at polls during election times and going into certain parts of town because of police brutality. There are states and cities all over the country that have areas where police brutality is a major problem, and these places are allowed to get away with this brutality without any consequences. There are areas where police get away with using excessive force on certain people, simply because those people have Black/dark skin. The police claim that Black people who even ask why they are being pulled over are resisting and therefore using unnecessary force and get away with. Police also harass and pull over Black people more than white people simply under the excuse that the Black person was “suspicious.” Many cops also have a tendency to pull a gun more often and sooner when dealing with Black people, regardless if they are kids or adults, than they do or would with white kids and adults. This is not right that in the county that takes pride in its citizens having freedom, a large percentage of its population lives in constant fear of those who are supposed to, and swear to, defend and protect all Americas from harm and danger. 

I believe that the federal government should step in and put a stop to this brutality and racism, as it is infringing on these people’s lives that are being affected by it. Innocent people are still dying because of their skin color, or at least experience violence in some form or another, and this is a huge compromise to their safety. If state’s government won’t do anything to stop the racist actions still happening, or worse are even the reason for it, then I think the federal government needs to implement policies and actions that will stop these practices from being allowed. I also think that society as a whole needs to grow up and move on from the old ways of thinking, and stand up for the injustices that are taking place and realize that all lives matter. No one should die or be hurt because of their skin color, and even more is the fact that in the land of the free it should not be tolerated and allowed to still continue happening. I also do not feel that white people should be allowed to get away with claiming self-defense when they have murdered an innocent Black person, including the cops who shoot and kill unharmed people because they were black. The laws and biases that allow for a grown white person to claim he shot and killed a black child under self-defense because the white person felt the kid was “dangerous,” even though he was unharmed and minding his own business, and got off with this claim even after a police dispatcher told him he needs to leave the kid alone is just not right. 

For me, knowing that kids are not getting a good education, if any at all, because of their skin color, and are instead being thrown out on the streets or straight into jail is just not humane. America is still abandoning its own kids because of a centuries old thought that skin color makes someone a monster and not a human. The prison systems are overflowing with inmates, most of which are Black Americans, as a result of the system that is currently set up to help White American kids and adults succeed but make Black American kids and adults fail. The system from the bottom is still racist in way to many areas of the country, and is designed to make Backs fail and therefore push them towards a life of crime and prison. In 2020 America still suffers from the same problems that it had 100 years ago, even after all the progress that has been made and all the fighting for the rights of blacks over the last 50+ years. It is time that it stops, and I truly hope that enough people will it see it this way and stand up for what is right; even if it is only little by little.

Comment

Around the time you wrote this, we had to read portions of the Justice Department’s report on the police and courts of Ferguson, Missouri. That report, and your essay, report on the very real problem we have. There are many persons in law enforcement and the courts who are unbiased, who are idealistic, and who work against prejudices and racism. But, as they are not causing problems, we give less attention to those, and focus instead on the transgressions that need correcting.  That report on Ferguson should inspire anyone who reads it to take action to improve community relations with police forces.  More people ought to read this report.  Here are excerpts—sentences and notes I took as I read it:

Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs.

The result is a pattern of stops without reasonable suspicion and arrests without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment; infringement on free expression, as well as retaliation for protected expression, in violation of the First Amendment; and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

City and court officials have adhered to these court practices despite acknowledging their needlessly harmful consequences.

This evidence of bias and stereotyping, together with evidence that Ferguson has long recognized but failed to correct the consistent racial disparities caused by its police and court practices, demonstrates that the discriminatory effects of Ferguson’s conduct are driven at least in part by discriminatory intent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Restoring trust in law enforcement will require recognition of the harms caused by Ferguson’s law enforcement practices, and diligent, committed collaboration with the entire Ferguson community.

City and police leadership pressure officers to write citations, independent of any public safety need, and rely on citation productivity to fund the City budget.

There is no indication that anyone considered whether community policing and public safety would be better served by devoting five overtime officers to neighborhood policing instead of a “revenue pipeline” of highway traffic enforcement. 

Ignoring the central fact that they had handcuffed a man and put him in a police car despite having no reason to believe he had done anything wrong, a sergeant vigorously defended FPD’s actions, characterizing the detention as “minimal” and pointing out that the car was air conditioned.

When the man then extended his identification toward the officers, at their request, the officers interpreted his hand motion as an attempted assault and took him to the ground.

FPD’s suppression of speech reflects a police culture that relies on the exercise of police power—however unlawful—to stifle unwelcome criticism.

FPD officers seem to regard ECWs as an all-purpose tool bearing no risk. But an ECW—an electroshock weapon that disrupts a person’s muscle control, causing involuntary contractions—can indeed be harmful.

The punitive use of force by officers is unconstitutional and, in many cases, criminal. 

The video makes clear, however, that the man never tried to stand—he only writhed in pain on the ground.

Finally, FPD does not perform any comprehensive review of force incidents sufficient to detect patterns of misconduct by a particular officer or unit, or patterns regarding a particular type of force.

Alongside its divisive law enforcement practices and lack of meaningful response to community concerns about police conduct, FPD has made little effort in recent years to employ community policing or other community engagement strategies.

When implemented fully, community policing creates opportunities for officers and community members to have frequent, positive interactions with each other, and requires officers to partner with communities to solve particular public safety problems that, together, they have decided to address. 

Another officer told us that officers cannot “get out of the car and play basketball with the kids,” because “we’ve removed all the basketball hoops—there’s an ordinance against it.”

Considering Race In Adoption Placements

This reaction essay is a response to an article in The Independent, a British newspaper. Article Link: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/adoption-parents-children-ethnic-match-video-boy-orlando-clark-a9236981.html


As I was searching the internet (the SWK 355 Website) for potential articles to look at and research for ourselves, I came across quite a few articles that caught my eye. As I am interested in becoming an adoption specialist with my degree, I am drawn to articles that contain adoption information. The article I came across while browsing the site was, Children waiting for adoptive parents need love, not a perfect ethnic match. I think this article mainly got my attention because I believe that this is a major issue with adoption around the world today. Although this article and case took place in the UK, this is a situation that occurs all over the world. This article made many great points about what should be looked into when finding a potential adoptive family. As I progress in my education, and in one day, my career, I hope that I can help make a change to the discrimination that comes about when adopting. 

This article starts out by stating that a family in the UK was awarded £120,000 ($148,524 in USD) when a judge found that they were racially discriminated against when trying to adopt a child. This family was rejected because of their Indian ancestry. The adoption agency told this family that only white British pre-school children were available for adoption in the area and they should instead look to adopt from India or Pakistan. Although the couple had successful careers and had secure incomes and a nice home, their ethnicity is what prevented them from being able to adopt. Their ethnicity is what trumped the fact that these individuals were great potential matches to be adoptive parents. This couple has also undergone several rounds of IVF and was unsuccessful and also lost an early pregnancy. The did eventually adopt a child from the US. 

This article also added a case that happened in the US in Michigan as a five-year-old invited his entire kindergarten class to celebrate his adoption with him. Some of his classmates even made statements about how they felt about this child. This case became a viral video and this video shows that the young boy is African American and his adoptive parents are white. This shows that ethnicity is not important to a family and community, it is more important that the boy feels love and security from his parents and other siblings. That is what is important for these children that are being adopted into families. 

It is obvious that adoption agencies would prefer to match ethnicities between children and parents, but to only focus on matching ethnicities could potentially impact that child’s opportunities to be adopted. When agencies try to do this, children are not given the chance to go to a happy, safe, and loving home. That is what is most important for the child, one needs to think about what is best for the child as opposed to matching ethnicities. 

One final point that I would like to add is a quote from the husband. He said, “However matching cultural values and beliefs is just one of many areas that should be assessed when looking at the suitability of adopters to ensure that child’s welfare. It should never be the overriding factor to stop you even being considered— which is what happened to us” (Mander, 2020). 

Overall, I have I always known that discrimination in adoption was very possible and even common. What I want to possibly change about this in the future is to stop making ethnical reasons the main priority as to where a child belongs. I understand that it is important for families to understand the culture that could potentially be added to the family dynamic. I believe the most important aspect is that the child is placed in a home that can provide love, stability, and a safe place. 

Comment

 With more blended families, it is becoming not too uncommon for children of one racial/ethnic identity to have step-parents with different identities. Interracial marriage is also creating more blended families. And as always, there are thousands of international adoptions. All else being equal, as a tertiary consideration, placing children in families with similar ethnic and racial backgrounds may be better, but it rarely makes sense to make this a primary consideration, if we are prioritizing the child’s best interests. There is, however, the interesting case of small groups of indigenous peoples, who may be especially concerned with preserving their culture and identity, and may be especially worried about having children adopted out of their group and into the hegemonic wider society. One issue worth emphasizing is that culture is not in our blood. In some times and places, groups have supplemented their population growth through natural increase (having children) with taking in refugees or even kidnapping young people and young women from other groups and bringing them into their own culture. The idea that you could steal or purchase children from a different group and make them part of your own group was normal. Shared experiences and emotional bonds and social cohesion made tribes and clans, not some shared DNA. In the United States, partly because the culture here incorporated the concept of slavery and the resulting dehumanization of the families that were enslaved, we became obsessed with our genetic heritage and whether we had sub-saharan African ancestry. This continuing obsession with our biological heritage is a cultural attribute that continues to infect our society, and I wonder how many generations must endure this until we have outgrown it.

Death Penalty Policy

The death penalty is a federal punishment that is given to a criminal that has committed a grave crime. Crimes such as murder, extreme, malicious torture, and/or rape cases whether or not the victim survives are some examples of this (HG.org Legal Resources, 2020). More than half of America still support this form of punishment, though a growing number of the American population is no longer in support. Many find it unethical, though others feel it’s the most justified way to appropriately punish one for committing such horrid crimes. 

Though it used to happen pretty often within the last century (with varied ways of execution, such as electrocution and gassing), now, only “about 60 prisoners are on the federal death row…three federal executions have been carried out in the modern era, all by lethal injection, with the last occurring in 2003” (Death Penalty Information Center, 2019). Also, a court ruling was issued after Furman v. Georgia in 1972, where the number of eligible offenses for the death penalty, which was declared unconstitutional, was expanded to about 60 in the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 (Death Penalty Information Center, 2019).

There are varied opinions about the death penalty in the United States. Some people feel the death penalty helps give some sort of consolation and ease for the victim’s loved ones with a death sentence as opposed to the criminal on parole and still a potential threat. In other cases, some feel it “serves the ends of justice and acts as a deterrent” (HG.org Legal Resources, 2020). Some, rather, feel the potential risk of executing an innocent person falsely accused of committing a heinous crime, which, sadly, has happened many times. 

With this being said, there have been significant modifications. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty cannot be given to mentally disabled offenders in Atkins v. Virginia, 2002, juvenile offenders in Roper v. Simmons, 2005, or to “those convicted of raping a child where death was not the intended or actual result” in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 2008. In addition, the court has mandated that “juries and not judges find facts that make a defendant eligible for capital punishment (Ring v. Arizona, 2002), and impose a sentence of death (Hurst v. Florida, 2016)” (McInnes, 2020).  

In conclusion, there is much controversy and criticism in regard to the death penalty, whether or not it should be a form of punishment given, to whom it should be given and for why, and so forth. The death penalty has long been present in America, and though modifications to ways in which people are killed have been made and criteria have been adjusted to make it more just and ethical, many still feel it should not exist at all.

References

Death Penalty Information Center. (2019, December 7). Federal Death Penalty. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/federal-death-penalty 

HG.org Legal Resources. (2020). Capital Punishment Law - Guide to Death Penalty Law. https://www.hg.org/death-penalty.html 

McInnes, K. (2020, March 24). States and Capital Punishment. https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/death-penalty.aspx 

Free Universal School Lunch

Introduction

As everybody is aware, it is virtually impossible to create a policy that pleases everybody and has no flaws and/or controversies. This is because of an issue known as inevitable error, which is the idea that there will always be errors or problems with a policy that cannot be solved. Clearly these controversies about policies must be taken into serious consideration and weighed heavily, but they do not always need to make it to where policies are not enacted, but hopefully the cons can transform the policies to better suit as many people’s agenda as possible. In the following paper the basic overview of what Free Universal School Lunch will be addressed, along with the pros and the cons of this policy. 

Basic Overview of Free Universal School Lunch

Poverty in the United States is a serious issue that impacts hundreds of thousands of children every single day. These children oftentimes go hungry while at home because their parents cannot afford to feed them adequately, which is why school breakfast and lunches are extremely important for so many of these children to have at their disposal. Free Universal School Lunch allows for all children to have access to free school lunch, and sometimes even breakfast, which eliminates many issues. One key issue this eliminates, on top of ensuring hungry children are fed, is the segregation of poor children from their peers. There is much evidence that children who receive free or reduced lunches at school are separated from their peers in the lunch line, or the other children are able to see their balance and know that they are either getting their lunches free or reduced, which can cause a lot of humiliation amongst poorer children. This humiliation and segregation amongst children can lead to bullying, low self-esteem and shame.

Arguments in favor of Free Universal School Lunch

Through the free and reduced lunch system already in place, families must meet very strict and specific criteria in order to qualify for these lunches. This has recently become a bigger issue because the Trump Administration enacted a policy that would “...tighten eligibility requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that could result in hundreds of thousands of the poorest children losing automatic eligibility for free school lunches” (Chaney, 2018). In other words, hundreds of thousands of children will have lunch debt and go hungry at school because the requirements to receive SNAP benefits have been made more difficult, which directly correlates to the requirements needed to receive free and reduced lunches. This issue could be solved if every single student received free lunch. It would eliminate the issues of segregating poor children from wealthy children and alleviate the stress of parents that do not qualify for SNAP and free/reduced lunches from scrambling to pay for school lunches they cannot afford. Another pro of Free Universal School Lunch is the fact that there will no longer be free and/or reduced lunch paperwork for people to have to fill out. According to “The Benefits of Universal Free School Lunch Meals,” 

“...paper applications can yield errors, and some children who need meals can fall through the cracks due to transient families, language barriers and other communication breakdowns. When access to school meals is no longer linked to the application and income verification process, there is less room for error and all children are eligible to eat” (Levin & Hewins). 

In other words, eliminating paperwork reduces the risk of students not receiving free or reduced lunch as a result of errors beyond their control. The system sometimes fails to see where there is need, which can leave people behind, but with Universal Free School Lunches, this issue is gone. Another argument in favor of universal free lunches brought up by Levin & Hewins is that “Schools no longer have to foot the bill for unpaid meal fees or try to collect them from families. This allows school nutrition staff to focus on preparing and serving healthy meals and eliminates a significant financial burden for school districts and families.” This is such a crucial pro because it not only emphasizes the importance of healthy meals for these children, which many of them do not receive at home, but also shows how this policy would positively impact the school districts by saving them time and resources.

In essence, if persons are very concerned about children with low incomes going hungry, and they worry that children who ought to receive free meals at school are not getting those meals, they may prefer a universal free lunch program, as such a program would eliminate the problem of children being financially unable to purchase meals. Such a program totally removes the error of denying services or food to persons who should be getting those services. Such a policy would provide free lunches to many students who do not require such assistance, but if someone is not very concerned with that type of error, then the universal free lunch system may be a favored policy.

Arguments Against Free Universal School Lunch

As stated previously, with any policy, there will always be inevitable error. Free Universal School Lunch is not an exception to this, so it is important to note the injustices or inefficiencies this policy can produce. One problem presented by McDonald, is the idea that Free Universal School Lunch would make it less likely for children to bring their own lunches from home since the school lunch would be free (2019). This is an issue because school lunches are not known for being healthy, and there is significant evidence to suggest that “children who ate school lunches were more likely to be obese than children who brought a lunch from home—despite entering kindergarten with the same obesity rates” (McDonald, 2019). In other words, promoting Free Universal School Lunch, in a way, is encouraging children to not bring their own lunches to school, which means they will be eating unhealthier school lunches and the obesity rates could increase. Another argument presented by Mull, is that the Universal Free School Lunch system creates more people reliant on the government for assistance (2017). This is an issue because the more people that are living on any type of government assistance are less likely to “bite the hand that feeds them” (Mull, 2017), which then makes bigger government more likely. This then leads to the government being in control of the children’s nutrition, which takes away “parental role in a child’s nutritional development” (Mull, 2019). All in all, this is an argument that is in favor of preserving family values, and the Free Universal School Lunch hinders these values.

There are also issues of fairness to consider. The funds for universal free lunches would come from the Federal Income Tax, or perhaps state taxes on incomes, sales, and property. Everyone would pay. Free lunches would be universal, meaning all children could receive their free lunches. The implications are that wealthy children who had no need of free school lunches would be getting a benefit they didn’t need, while working-class and middle class families would be paying for the wealthy children’s lunches through their taxes. Further, if children do not pay for their lunches, they could potentially adopt an attitude that devalued their meals, and they might be more prone to wasting food. Restaurants near schools, where students might frequently go for lunches or after-school food, would possibly see a decline in their business, and the proprietors of such restaurants would certainly perceive this as unfair competition. Finally, school lunches typically include meat, and the consumption of animal flesh is deeply offensive to some persons, based on their religious or ethical values. Promoting the consumption of animals during school lunches may benefit ranchers and large-scale factory livestock operations, but this is an inefficient use of the planet’s resources, and contributes to global warming, so unless vegetarian or vegan options are available, the continuing emphasis on meat consumption during school lunches raises ethical issues for taxpayers whose convictions are ignored when the government promotes all school children to eat animals without paying for the costs of producing such food.

Conclusion

As noted, when weighing the decision to enact or not enact a policy, it is crucial to consider the pros and the cons of that policy. This is to ensure that all sides of the argument are heard and provides the means of altering the policy if need be to eliminate as many of its errors as possible. Free Universal School Lunch would create an avenue where poor children are provided meals without their parents having to worry about how they will pay for those meals, but also promotes obesity in children and is thought to make people rely more on the government. Altogether, the pros of Free Universal Free Lunches seem to outweigh the cons. 

References

Chaney, M. (2018, December 14). Making Healthy School Lunches Free for All Should Be a National Priority. Civil Eats. https://civileats.com/2018/12/14/making-healthy-school-lunches-free-for-all-should-be-a-national-priority/

Levin, M., & Hewins, J. The Benefits of Universal Free School Lunch. CFPA. https://cfpa.net/ChildNutrition/benefits_of_universal_free_meals_7_26_16.pdf

McDonald, K. (21 January 2019). It’s Clear the Federal Government Shouldn’t Be Involved in the School Lunch Business. Foundation for Economic Education. https://fee.org/articles/its-clear-the-federal-government-shouldn-t-be-involved-in-the-school-lunch-business/

Mull, T. (24 February 2017). Why cutting back “free” school lunches would be a favor to families. The Hill. https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/education/321021-why-cutting-back-free-school-lunches-would-be-a-favor-to

Abortion Issues

  Abortion is perhaps one of the oldest and most controversial issues in American society today. The topic of abortion continues to divide American’s all across the country. Abortion is not only a morality, human right, and religious issue to people it is also a political issue that uniquely qualifies it is highly debatable and a sensitive topic. The legality and policies vary greatly from state to state and differ widely from coast to coast. 

     Abortion in the United States prior to 1973 was legal up to the point where a mother could actually feel her fetus moving, which typically occurs in a women’s pregnancy in the first trimester. Therefore, a woman was limited to the first trimester to receive an abortion before new legislation was instituted. In 1973, the revolutionary supreme court case Roe versus Wade changed abortion policies in the United States.  The finding in this case were that a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion was protected by the 14^th amendment in the United States Constitution.  Thus, the decision made it legal to get an abortion after the first trimester of pregnancy.  

      In order to best understand changes that have recently developed in Illinois, it is important to briefly outline the history of reproductive rights as it pertains to Illinoisans.  In 1827 abortion-inducing drugs were outlawed.  In 1867, abortions became illegal with the exceptions of aborting after rape or for health reasons.  In 1973, after supreme court hearing Roe versus Wade, abortions became legal.  In 2017, Illinois was recognized as a destination for out-of-state women seeking abortion.  This was due to the fact that many other states had very strict laws regarding abortions.

On March 1,^, 2020, the governor passed a bill called the Reproductive Health Act.  This bill changed policies surrounding the former way of obtaining an abortion in the state of Illinois.  The restrictions that were set in place now include that at least one parent of a minor must be notified prior to the abortion.  Another change is that an abortion may be performed at or after viability only if the patient’s life or health is endangered.

     The Reproductive Health Act changed many things for woman’s healthcare.  What many people become upset about was the part of the bill that made it possible for a woman to get an abortion into her third trimester. According to the ACLU this bill also includes “recognizing that each person has a fundamental right to make decisions about reproductive health care including “contraception, abortion, and maternity care.”  The bill establishes that private insurance plans cover abortion at the same rate they would cover any other care in regard to pregnancy, which makes abortions more easily accessible for individuals who otherwise may have to pay out of pocket for a medical procedure. 

     There are many anti-abortion activists that are appalled at the changes that this bill has created.  They believe that an abortion is synonymous with murder. They believe that women should be charged with murder for these acts.  Anti-abortionists do not agree with their tax dollars going to causes that helps women to end their pregnancy resulting in the death of their unborn child.  They make the argument that there are many people in the world that want children and are waiting to adopt a child while there are others that are killing their child.  They believe that many women who abort their child are using this procedure as a form of contraceptives.  In the instances that a woman is raped they think it would be a better choice to seek “the morning after pill” to refrain from any unwanted pregnancies.  Complications from procedures is another point that activists wish to point out.  If there are not complications medically, the mental health of a women who ended her pregnancy is known to be higher with the women often feeling regret for her choice.  

     To counter the argument against third trimester abortions, pro-choice activist report that nearly all abortions, about 90%, take place during the first trimester except in the case of mother being unable to safely carry the fetus. Individuals on the side of pro-choice argue that sometimes it is not safe to carry a fetus full term and that adoption is not a viable choice to many mothers. They also argue that third-trimester abortions are usually performed when a child has a serious defect, such that they would probably die at birth or within the first hours after birth. Adoption, on the surface level, seems like a good option, but often it is difficult for the mother to give her baby away at the time of birth. 

Rape and incest are traumatic for any person. However, when a fetus in produced as a result it becomes a little more complicated. Not only does rape and incest cause trauma, shame is also birthed as a result. Shame and secrecy go hand in hand and often the mother doesn’t want to admit she was raped or has the possibility of being pregnant. Pro-choice activists are charged with defending against arguments about taxpayer dollars going toward abortion. Pro-choice advocates argue that taxpayer dollars support many activities that may go against someone ideals and even morals, such as war. Also, on the back end if a person has a child with whom they cannot support and attempt to raise, the chances of taxpayers’ dollars being spent on entitlements and benefits for that family potentially continue until the child is an adult.  Banning abortion does not save money. 

While Illinois certainly has become a controversial state with their abortion laws, it is clear many people remain firm when it comes to their views and will continue to argue their views. In the next 10 years, it will be interesting to see where people stand on the topic of reproductive rights in Illinois and if their voices were heard to a point where legislative changes will be made. 

This paper discusses some of the points made by pro-life and pro-choice advocates in the abortion dispute. You might have observed that the root of the conflict is the different assumptions or premises the two camps use.  If the embryo or fetus is not a person, then restricting abortion violates the human rights and the autonomy of the women. And, as the American Supreme Court decided, citizens have a right to expect privacy in their medical care, so if a doctor and a patient decide that an abortion is necessary, the government does not have a right to interject itself into that relationship and forbid this procedure. For those who oppose abortion, the pregnancy involves a new person, and that unborn child person must be protected, and their life must be preserved. At some point between conception and birth, we become persons, but determining where that line is crossed is a matter that seems somewhat arbitrary. 

The Pew Foundation regularly surveys Americans to learn about popular opinion concerning abortions. In 2020 it seems about 33% want abortion to be harder to get (including those who want to ban abortion).  About 26% want abortion to be easier to get. About 39% say abortion is appropriately available, and should remain as easy/difficult to get as it currently is. 

The CONNECT for Health Act

The CONNECT for Health Act stands for the Creating Opportunities Now for Necessary and Effective Care Technologies for Health Act. This is an Act that is being submitted by the ALS Association (a group advocating for care and treatment for persons facing the progressive neurodegenerative disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). The main point of the bill is to ensure  that patients with ALS gain access to telemedicine and Telehealth regardless of their location. Patients who have access to telemedicine and Telehealth tend to be in rural areas, where access to health care for their needs is not within close proximity. This bill is pushing for the expansion of access so that patients who may live in the city or closer to their health services, but cannot physically get to them, can still get the health care and doctors appointments that they need. The ALS Association has agreed to, “work closely with stakeholders across the health care and technology ecosystem to expand a legal and regulatory environment where providers are permitted to deliver safe, high quality care using Telehealth and telemedicine regardless of care delivery location or technological method” (ALS Association). This would ensure that the process of using Telehealth and telemedicine for serving ALS patients would go as smoothly as possible on both ends of the line, and would ensure that patients are still getting the best care possible without the stress of having to leave their home. 

Those in favor of this act support it because it would allow for a greater number of patients with ALS to get access to the much needed health care that they may otherwise not be able to access. Doing appointments online through this method increases the chances that more people will be able to make their appointment, as they do not have to leave their homes and travel to meet with their doctor. Another reason people support this act is because if patients are in a wheelchair or need lots of medical assistance to function, then they may not be able to travel or may feel too insecure to travel to the doctor’s office. Having their appointments available through an online format where they can talk to their doctor from the comfort of their home can have a significant positive impact on their self-esteem and reduce stress that comes along with trying to travel. Many in congress favor this bill and agree it would improve health access to many patients.

Currently there is no opposition to passing the act. All comments made on this act have been in favor of it. However, possible oppositions to this act may include that it does not allow for as much of a personal connection between patients and health care providers. By doing appointments online, and not in person, there is a limitation to how much of a personal relationship can be built. Another potential reason one might oppose this Act is because of the dependency on the internet that it requires. In order for patients to meet with providers through Telehealth and remote means, each person must have access to the internet and be able to keep a strong connection during the entire appointment. If the internet is down or not strong enough for one or more participants at the time of an appointment, then the patient may not be able to meet with their health care provider for their appointment. These are only possible oppositions to the bill and are not oppositions made my congress.

References

http://www.alsa.org/advocacy/Public-Policy-Priorities.html?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2741

Protecting Social Workers and Health Professionals from Workplace Violence Act of 2019

This year Congress may consider approving the Protecting Social Workers and Health Professionals from Workplace Violence Act of 2019; this is a policy that would help provide safety measures to social workers, health care workers, and human services professionals. This bill would especially protect those who provide services for high risk and dangerous situations and for other reasons. Representative  Brownley of California introduced the bill to the House of Representatives on November 18, 2019. It was then referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to States to provide safety measures to social workers, health workers, and human service professionals in dangerous and high risk situations. 

The bill will award grants to States, Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations to provide safety measures protecting these professionals. Grants that may be awarded to these States or organizations will provide support for certain safety precautions. Such safety measures include: installation of safety equipment, technical assistance and training for safety communications, training sessions and exercises for self defense, facility safety improvements, training in cultural competency, training to work with certain clients, resources and materials to educate staff on safety and awareness, support services, installation of a local data incident tracking systems to monitor threats and violence, and other prevention measures laid out by the Secretary. The installation of safety equipment includes communications or recording systems such as cell phones, tracking devices, or panic buttons used for foster care or other client visits to ensure safety. Facility safety improvements include barrier protection and security cameras. Training in cultural competency could include linguistic training, and training for minimizing conflict situations. Training social workers and other health professionals for work with certain clients include: clients with serious mental and substance use disorders, behavioral problems, and those who need help coping. The support services that would be implemented would be counseling and additional resources for those workers who have experienced safety issues or trauma in the workplace. 

In order for a State or organization to receive such a grant, they must submit an application to the Secretary accompanied by any information that the Secretary requires. Each application should describe the agencies that will receive funding and type of work done by the agencies, describe the specific activities for which the grant will be used, and include a budget, and assurance that the State or organization will continually evaluate the effectiveness of the safety measures provided by the grant. 

The cost of this bill is authorized to be appropriated $10 million for each year from 2021 through to 2025. That is the total amount of funding, so if each year 10 states received grants through this act, the grants would average $1 million per state per year, and over the course of five years, each state could hypothetically get a grant. But of course, the training needs in states like California, Texas, New York, and Florida would be much higher than in Wyoming, New Hampshire, Delaware, and North Dakota, so some states might get a few hundred thousand and others might get two or three million. The grant comes from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and requires follow up with those applicants who received the grant to continue receiving the money for their safety measures. Currently this bill has been passed by the House of Representatives and is currently waiting to be passed by the Senate. 

There are many healthcare professionals that would benefit from this bill. Many nurses face the fear of going to work each day, not knowing what kind of patients they will have that day. A majority of these nurses are those who work with older patients and those patients who have mental or behavior disorders. Some patients become violent with their nurses, sometimes on purpose, and sometimes through no fault of their own (for example, in some types of dementia). This bill would help make nurses feel more safe going to work each day. Whether it is because they now know self defense, or they have other trainings on how to handle dangerous situations. This bill would also help social workers who work in the field, out of the office. There have been many cases where social workers have gone out into the field, especially foster care visits or DCFS investigations, and have been injured, harmed, or assaulted on the job. For example, in September of 2017 Andrew Sucher felt the DCFS was harassing him, so he knocked down social worker Pamela Knight and kicked her, mortally injuring her, so that she died a little over four months later. With this bill these social workers would be provided with self defense training, as well as provided with GPS/bluetooth tracking so that supervisors and law enforcement know where the worker is placed. Overall, this bill will provide not only peace of mind to these workers, but it will also provide them with concrete measures to remain safe in the workplace.