An 18-month-old toddler is currently being held in San Antonio while the mother is 120 miles away in an immigration detention center. A mother seeking asylum from the Republic of Congo was sent to detention center in San Diego while her daughter was taken to a facility in Chicago. Last month three siblings fleeing gang violence in El Salvador were taken to a shelter in Arizona while their mother was taken to a detention center in Buffalo.
This week, the New York Times confirmed that more than 700 children have been separated from their families by ICE at the Southern border since October. While these stories have invoked national headlines, the widespread occurrence has been hidden until now.
The policy of separating families at the border was publicly discussed in 2017 by the Trump administration as a deterrence tactic to discourage families from seeking refuge in the United States. Officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) now say they are not splitting families as a deterrence tactic, but rather to protect the best interests of minor children crossing the border.
These children and families have faced inconceivable hardships and escaped a life of violence, war, and poverty in their home countries. Alienating them from the only support that they have in the country will only add to the trauma they have experienced.
“The idea of punishing parents who are trying to save their children’s lives and punishing children for being brought to safety by their parents by separating them, is fundamentally cruel and un-American.”
– Michele Brane, Director of Migrant Rights and Justice program at the Women’s Refugee Commission
In addition to separating families at the border, the Trump administration is increasing interior enforcement efforts including workplace raids which often result in the loss of a primary caregiver. Earlier this month in Tennessee, a devastating raid took place resulting in 97 arrests. In rural Tennessee this massive raid was a nightmare for families as their mothers, fathers, husbands, and wives were suddenly swept away. Consequently, more than 500 students did not show up to school the next day causing the community to come together to support the families who were impacted by the raids.
According to a study by the Urban Institute, for every two adults apprehended, at least one child is negatively affected. Increased isolation and fear of separation creates an environment of toxic stress that manifests in a number of ways in a child’s behavior including problems sleeping, depression, anxiety, and an inability to focus in school due to fear of not seeing their parents after school.
According to another report released by the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), even the possibility of separation can cause health problems—such as depression, anxiety, and toxic stress—which can lead to long-term developmental delays that seriously hinder a child’s ability to succeed in adulthood.
Immigration policies should be modified to prioritize the unity of families and allow discretion for parents and primary caregivers of minor children. In an effort to combat the stress felt by families who are separated due to immigration enforcement, Representative Roybal-Allard and Representative Torres of California introduced the Help Separated Families Act of 2018 (H.R. 5414). First Focus Campaign for Children has endorsed this legislation.
Immigration reform has been a heated topic for years, but the current polarization of our political climate has brought this debate once again to the forefront.
We urge Congress to remember the families involved in these decisions and the children who will be affected for a lifetime due to the trauma of needlessly being separated from their loved ones.
In a continuing series on the personal impact that recent legislative and administrative proposals to restructure or severely reduce Medicaid health care will have upon vulnerable children and families, this segment focuses on Medicaid for children with special health care needs who are adopted. As described in an earlier blog, Medicaid serves a critical need for many children with special health care needs, regardless of parental income. Children in foster care or adoptive families may have additional challenges in accessing the health care they need.
It is difficult to quantify the number of children waiting for adoption who have special health care needs. There is no consistent definition of “special needs” across states or the federal government. It has been estimated that on any given day, nearly half a million children are in foster care and at least one-third of those children have special needs. Some advocates and organizations argue, however, that all children in foster care have special needs due to the very factors that led to foster care itself.
Irrespective of the definition one uses, it takes a very special family to adopt a child with special health care needs. There are hundreds of thousands throughout the country. This is the story of one such family. It is a story of courage and perseverance. It is the story of a beautiful child who found a permanent and loving family.
It is also an instructive account of the critical importance of federal and state programs in assisting parents and families to adopt children with special health care needs; most significantly, the Medicaid program (a federal-state partnership, states guaranteed a minimum of 50% matching federal funds) and the Title IV-E Foster Care Program (states can claim limited federal funding for eligible expenses). When a child is adopted from foster care and eligible for Title IV-E, that eligibility provides adoption assistance as well as Medicaid coverage, regardless of family income, for that child until the age of 18, or in some cases, 21. This Medicaid coverage goes with the child to any state. Without Title IV-E eligibility, a child with special health care needs may or may not qualify for Medicaid, or a Medicaid waiver in a given state, such as the Katie Beckett waiver; he or she will not be considered a beneficiary who is guaranteed Medicaid health coverage in any state.
That difference is key to this story about the Carrigg family, a military family, covered under Tricare, and subject, as most military families, to frequent moves to different states. The availability of Medicaid coverage to any adopting family who might need, or simply want, to move to another state for employment or other reasons, is a key factor in the ability to financially afford the necessary care involved in adopting a child with special health care needs.
These costs can be enormous and ongoing. It is a critical issue we must address in making it easier, not harder, for parents to adopt children with special health care needs. As stated by Austin Carrigg, mother to two biological teenaged sons and her 5-year-old daughter Melanie who is adopted, she has a “heartfelt concern that many children are not adopted because of the cost of their medical needs.”
There is good reason for her concern. The Carrigg family’s experience also demonstrates what can be shockingly prevalent in our health care system, regardless of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act – namely, ongoing health care discrimination against children and adults with disabilities.
MM: How did you learn about Melanie?
AC:We had been waiting to adopt a special needs child for 5 years.Melanie’s birth parents decided that they could not care for Melanie. They chose us after considering other potential families. We had several conversations about Melanie and her needs during that time. While Melanie was not in foster care, her birth parents did not feel they could parent her and she subsequently could not remain in their home, leaving adoption as the only option available.
MM: What was it like when you first brought Melanie home?
AC:I flew to Hawaii in early November 2012 to pick her up and fell in love with her from the first moment I held her in my arms. I had promised my son I would be back in time for his 10th birthday and we were.
Bringing Melanie home was wonderful and scary all at the same time as there were a lot of unexpected challenges. Her little stomach was as big around as she was tall so I made an appointment with the pediatrician for the day after we arrived home. Melanie has Down syndrome, a congenital heart defect (Complete AV canal), as well as Glycogen Storage Disease (GSD). This is a genetic metabolic disease that makes it difficult for her to store glycogen, similar to diabetes, causing low blood sugar and other symptoms. Melanie must eat frequently, foods high in protein and carbohydrates, while avoiding sugar. GSD can cause other complications, including an impact on her heart.
The pediatrician referred us to a cardiologist and we learned to our shock that three of Melanie’s ribs were broken. When he told us I remember sitting there, sobbing, trying to figure out how anyone could hurt my beautiful baby, and feeling helpless that I was not there to protect her. Melanie had to be admitted to the hospital so that an immediate investigation of her injuries, including the possibility of shaken baby syndrome. Finally, it was determined that she had likely gone into cardiac arrest at birth and during her resuscitation, hospital personnel had inadvertently broken three of her ribs, and had not properly documented it.
MM: Were you all able to begin adjusting to life at home at this point?
AC: It was Thanksgiving when we got Melanie back home. Almost immediately we received an urgent call from the hospital to bring her back – blood analysis had revealed her potassium levels were dangerously high and she was in severe congestive heart failure. She needed immediate open-heart surgery to repair her heart chambers and valves. While most surgeons want to wait until a child is at least six months old, and have had time to grow. Melanie could not wait. Her life was at risk.
But surgery is not cheap. As we met with the hospital’s finance department, they explained that we needed to put down a ten percent deposit before they could proceed —$100,000. We were inundated with forms outlining expected costs. Ultimately, the cost of saving my daughter’s life was one million dollars, and time was not on our side. We could not enroll her in TRICARE quickly enough — her life was literally at stake.
Then someone suggested we explore Medicaid as an option. She was hospitalized and as she was not officially adopted, she was considered, for legal purposes, to be a child with special needs and an orphan; she was thus eligible for Medicaid, and we immediately enrolled her.
Just 12 hours after discharge from this surgery, Melanie aspirated formula and was again hospitalized, this time with severe pneumonia. She spent Christmas and New Year’s in the hospital fighting for her life once again. Without her Medicaid coverage, her bills would have been astronomical. We had not had an opportunity to even begin her formal adoption when these crises occurred. She was finally discharged with oxygen to help her breathe and a G-tube (gastrostomy tube) to ensure there would be no danger of another aspiration.
MM: How did your lives go following Melanie’s heart surgery and subsequent hospitalization?
AC:My husband received orders that we were moving across the country while she was in the hospital and we were told to move despite the fact her medical team did not want her moved. The Army told us move with her or give her back; they didn’t care which but they would not stop the move. Clearly, we were never “returning” her, she is our daughter and we would give our lives for her. The move was grueling. I spent 5 days on Amtrak with her and her big brother because neither could be approved to fly for fear of a medical emergency mid-flight. We arrived in a new state and began formal adoption proceedings for Melanie; she was 5 months old at this time, still recovering but doing well. This required new home studies and extensive documentation. We had been foster parents before, so we knew the process. We applied for Title IV-E adoption assistance and were denied. The state told us that since Melanie had not been in foster care, she would not qualify for Title IV-E.
We discussed how Austin and her husband, Joshua, handled the news and decided to appeal this finding.
AC:Melanie needed Medicaid health coverage so that she could access all the care she needed. We were so in debt from all the expenses, and down to one family income since Melanie needed my care full time. While Tricare was our primary insurer, we were learning there were several costs, including Melanie’s very expensive and critical treatment for GSD, that Tricare did not cover. Those alone can be more than $1,000/month. Melanie had not officially been in foster care, but there were no other options for her with her birth parents. We were simply able to adopt her before she was sent to foster care, which was the best possible option for her at six weeks. We decided to appeal the decision denying her Title IV-E coverage, based on the federal guidelines, that do not explicitly require that a child be in foster care, but meet one of three special needs requirements; Melanie did meet one of those requirements – she could not be returned to the birth parent’s home.
It seems to be a common misconception that a special needs child must be adopted from foster care to qualify for Title IV-E adoption assistance and benefits. It took us nearly two and a half years, but we proved the guidelines do not require that under certain circumstances. We finally were able to adopt Melanie on my youngest son’s 10th birthday, just like we had originally brought her home on their big brother’s 10th birthday in November 2012. When we formally adopted her, we told him, “Today you get to keep your baby sister forever.”
Austin discussed the multiple challenges they faced with Melanie throughout this period of time. One in particular stands out.
AC:Melanie has Down’s Syndrome and is Deaf. Having Down’s Syndrome and being hard of hearing is common – being completely Deaf is not. I researched cochlear implants and believed it would be entirely possible for Melanie to have some hearing. She had surgery for an implant, and it was successful. Melanie made progress faster than her same-aged Deaf implanted peers. We met with the surgeon to discuss a second implant but were told that due to Melanie’s disabilities, “it wasn’t worth spending $60,000 on a device that they could give a typical child.”
This was shocking but in our experience, and that of many other parents, backed by research as well, it is not uncommon. Thankfully there are many more doctors who do not share this attitude, and at 4 she finally received her 2nd cochlear implant. Looking back on it now, I wish someone had sat us down and said “being Deaf is okay, she will gain more than she loses.” I wish they would have told me that she’d hate the implants and prefer to use ASL. But like any other parent you learn as you go, following your child’s lead.
MM: This article conveys just a very minor snapshot of all you and your husband have had to do to ensure Melanie’s care during the last 5 years. What lead you to adoption and how has it changed you as parents, as a family?
AC: We wanted a third child but we learned we were at risk of passing along a life-threatening genetic condition – that’s why we chose to adopt. When five years had passed and it didn’t seem to be in the cards, we accepted it. We were happy just being parents to our sons and decided to focus on them and furthering our careers. Then Melanie came along, and we realized how much we were missing. She has made us all better people. When your child may die, you realize what is really important in life. We hold our kids closer. Family is our number one priority. Careers don’t matter. I know my boys are going to be amazing men. The care and compassion Melanie has created in them is unbelievable. They fight often over which one of them Melanie will live with when we are gone, and who will protect her from the injustices she faces in her life.
My husband is amazing and I couldn’t do all I do without his help. We are 100% partners in everything. I know that many times having a child like Melanie tears marriages and families apart, but she has done the opposite for us. She’s brought us closer. We work together almost seamlessly when she needs us the most. A life- threatening situation pulls every member of this family into a team that works flawlessly together.
Melanie is the best thing that has ever happened to our family. Not because we don’t love our boys, but because she has changed us so fundamentally.
One of my sons has autism – our pediatrician said he has never seen a child with autism respond to another child the way he does with Melanie. It has taught him compassion in a way I don’t think anything else would have. I think for the first time in his life, someone was counting on him, not the other way around. He is proud of what he does for her, she depends on him and this has created greater meaning for him than anyone else in the family.
Today Melanie is a thriving, joyful and engaging 5-year-old who attends school, has friends, plays with her brothers, and generally speaking, lives a “normal” and very full life.
MM: Why do you advocate for changes in policy to help children like Melanie have the care they need, and also for parents like you to give children with special health care needs a permanent home?
AC:Melanie has made us so happy. She has given us so much, far more than anything we have had to “give up.” And to know there are so many children just like her, looking for families. And to know that those families do not adopt because they just can’t afford it is heartbreaking.
Some families decide to foster a special needs child. Not all are going to adopt – you actually have a greater guarantee of care as a foster parent. If a child remains a foster child, they have Medicaid and a foster care payment. If you adopt, you don’t have that same guarantee. That is not right.
The efforts to cut Medicaid are heartbreaking. The incentive to people to adopt is lessened.
I believe it should be straightforward and automatic – with none of the bureaucratic hurdles we had to jump through. Why would anyone think it is cheaper or better to pay a child welfare agency to make ongoing visits, etc., to a foster care family when that family may want to adopt but cannot afford the medical bills? We are still paying for the same health care for that child if they remain in foster care, except they get permanency and a sense of belonging in adoption.
If a child has special health care needs and their birth family cannot care for them, he or she should qualify for federal adoption assistance and Medicaid. Too many parents are fostering instead of adopting. Too many children are denied the permanence of a family for the very reasons we fought – and prevailed.
A new report out of Washington University in St. Louis has found that the cost of child poverty to the U.S. economy was a whopping $1.3 trillion in 2015, which amounts to 5.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
This is because child poverty in the U.S. remains high, with over 13 million children living below the poverty line. When children experience poverty, even for a short time, it can result in negative effects for their physical and mental health, nutrition, and educational attainment and achievement. All of these consequences are costly to our society, resulting in a loss of economic productivity and increased expenditures in our healthcare and criminal justice systems.
Yet recently we have seen harmful actions and proposals from Congress and the Administration that would further increase child poverty through weakening public assistance programs by imposing cuts, employment documentation requirements, irrational time limits, and other unnecessary government bureaucratic barriers.
Together, the policy briefs included in Our Kids, Our Future demonstrate that, in order to make significant progress in reducing child poverty and addressing racial and ethnic disparities, we need a national commitment that involves coordination between federal, state, and local levels of government.
Papers in the compendium include recommendations on increasing access to affordable and quality child care and early childhood education, reducing the effect of poverty on student achievement and attainment, addressing the increase in child welfare cases due to the opioid crisis, increasing families’ access to housing assistance, retooling the federal homeless assistance system, creating a universal paid family leave program, reducing the gender wage gap, addressing unique barriers faced by children of immigrants, supporting family asset building, meeting the needs of low-income children with special healthcare needs, and more.
Our Kids, Our Future was released last week through a Congressional briefing sponsored by Congressman Ben Ray Luján (D-NM-3).
In his remarks, Congressman Luján stated “Poverty is the greatest threat to our kids…Congress must do more, because child poverty should not be a partisan issue!”
Congressman Ben Ray Luján speaks as the U.S. Child Poverty Action Group premieres the release of Our Kids, Our Future: Solutions to Child Poverty in the U.S. at a Congressional briefing on April 18, 2018
The U.S. Child Poverty Action Group couldn’t agree more. We know that reducing child poverty is not only the right thing to do, but it is costing our country $1.3 trillion a year.
Child poverty reduction is also necessary for a strong economic future. Solutions to child poverty are tied to economic gains that result in a strong and educated workforce, which benefit businesses, communities and, of course, children and families.
The U.S. Child Poverty Action Group is a coalition of child-focused organizations dedicated to reducing child poverty in the U.S. More information can be found at www.childpovertyusa.org. Follow us on Twitter at @CPAG_USA.
While 2017 saw multiple legislative assaults upon the Affordable Care Act, and long-standing health care for highly vulnerable people through the Medicaid Program, these efforts were stopped by Congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans who crossed party lines. These leaders prevented the legislative dismantling of Medicaid– through draconian cuts, block grants or other funding and structural changes, preserving the nation’s health care and coverage program for low income children and families, children and adults with disabilities, pregnant women, and seniors, among others.
Public opposition to these efforts from governors, state officials, advocates and families was fierce, perhaps unprecedented, and only intensified as the year went on.
As public support for not repealing the ACA, and in favor of universal health care coverage, has grown during recent years, Congressional Republicans, deeply divided over health care themselves, continued the assault. Following earlier unsuccessful attempts in 2017 to “repeal and replace” the ACA, a dramatic thumbs down vote in July from Senator John McCain, on the so-called “skinny bill,” sank another “repeal and replace” bill that was also opposed by insurers, the Congressional Budget Office, and other experts.
One final push in September – the Graham-Cassidy bill, resulted in another botched attempt – the fourth legislative failure to repeal the ACA since the previous summer.
All these legislative attempts were highly publicized, politicized and garnered strong protests from diverse public and private fronts. The renewal of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), a program with nearly-unanimous and bipartisan support in Congress, carried over into 2018 in a months-long and highly public battle, when it was finally renewed for 10 years in February.
The year 2017 was a bad year for kids. Some policy experts considered it one of the worst in decades. Health care and children’s advocates, along with many others, held the legislative line. They breathed a small sigh of relief when the 2017 legislative year adjourned. Not for long, and other developments had been occurring elsewhere.
Enter 2018 – a critical year for Congress with an upcoming mid-term election that may dramatically change the balance of power; and legislators now leery of alienating constituents who deeply value their health care. In recent months, dangerously quiet administrative attacks upon health care and coverage for vulnerable people have proliferated. Often flying under the radar, these attempts prove more difficult to garner public comment and opposition since the process is so very different – and far less public – than the legislative process.
So, if you can’t legislate it, regulate it. Votes from the peoples’ representatives are not required.
In January 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a guidance letter to state Medicaid directors, encouraging them to submit state waivers focused on “work requirements” for state Medicaid programs. These waivers would require certain people to be employed in order to receive health care.
Medicaid waivers involve changes or “exemptions” from Medicaid requirements. These changes could involve programs, populations served, benefits, cost sharing, or any number of variables. States have traditionally used waivers to add or change the way services are delivered for special populations such as children and adults with autism spectrum disorder, people with disabilities, people with mental health or substance use needs, people who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare (“dual eligibles”), etc.
There is latitude for states to develop and utilize waivers that may assist them in more effectively serving and tailoring their programs to the needs of low-income and other vulnerable individuals, particularly children. Such waivers must be approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), pursuant to one of several waiver provisions.
The “work requirements” waivers fall under the authority of Section 1115 of the Medicaid statute. Section 1115 waivers are defined as “research and demonstration projects” to promote the objectives of the Medicaid program, and pilot ways to increase access to care, with evaluation requirements.
A plethora of blogs and articles have detailed the many facts and studies that show the purported rationale for work requirements in Medicaid – e.g., “encouraging people to work”—will not, in reality, work. This approach will not help people find work, and will decrease access to health care for highly vulnerable people. This is very bad policy for children. The negative impacts upon children and parents in low income families, children with disabilities, children of parents with disabilities, behavioral health, or substance use needs, will likely be enormous. The impact upon people with disabilities will be devastating. As one commentator stated, “Requiring Medicaid recipients to find employment is a cruel solution to a nonexistent problem.”
Despite purported “protections” for certain vulnerable groups, these waivers will have a disastrous effect on people’s ability to get and remain covered under Medicaid, due to bureaucratic and programmatic hurdles that are immense, poorly understood, and have not worked in other programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Along with punitive requirements that don’t work, there are no supports or funding to help vulnerable people actually meet these requirements. This is a pending catastrophe for parents and children.
What these waivers will accomplish is the systematic removal of Medicaid recipients, including children, from severely stressed state budgets. That means eligible people, including parents and children, will lose their health care and get sick or sicker, endanger public health, and return to emergency rooms, all of which were among the most significant and highly expensive problems addressed with the Affordable Care Act and its Medicaid expansion.
These waivers are being approved when children’s uninsured rate, thanks to the ACA and CHIP, is at an all-time low of 4.5 percent. It makes no sense. Children’s health coverage has been demonstrated to increase when their parents’ coverage does. Moreover, the human cost of losing critical health care is unfathomable in its repercussions upon the health, dignity, well-being, mental health, employment, housing, and untold number of factors for children and families.
Even from a purely financial savings standpoint, it is arguable that savings from fewer Medicaid recipients will be lower than the administrative costs required to actually implement these multi-layered requirements. We don’t know for sure, because states, in their rush to an ideologically driven policy, haven’t figured that part out yet. As stated by Jeff Myers, CEO of Medicaid Health Plans of America, “Rolling out new eligibility determination criteria will be administratively complex. For example, new information needs to be collected and tracked via new systems that need to be tested and installed, along with incurring new personnel costs to run them. The overall cost of this undertaking should be carefully considered by states before jumping on the bandwagon.”
It can be argued that this is not about increasing access to work or “independence.” It is about highly conservative political ideology and flies in the face of years of rational and proven progress toward what the vast majority of the country wants – greater, not lesser, health care coverage.
In early March, Arkansas became the third state, following Kentucky and Indiana, to receive HHS approval of it work requirements waiver, eliminating 60,000 Medicaid recipients according to state estimates. It joins Kentucky, where the uninsured rate fell from 16.3% to 7.2% following its Medicaid expansion (one of the largest reductions in the country), and Indiana, which has already lost an estimated 60,000 recipients due to its state plan for Medicaid expansion. Several more states have submitted or are considering applications.
Aside from the fact that “work requirements” waivers will not work, there is another equally, if not more, fundamental question. Are they legal? Questions abound as to whether work requirements are contrary to the very intent and objectives of the Medicaid program. A federal lawsuit challenging the Kentucky waiver is supported by a group of more than 40 legal health scholars whose friend-of-the-court brief contends the waiver approved by HHS violates the intent of Medicaid, stating in part, “This so-called ‘demonstration’ waiver, ‘destroys, not improves, Kentucky’s substantial health care achievements and defeats, rather than promotes, Medicaid’s purpose.’”
A new analysis estimates that work requirements waivers could impact 1.7 million Medicaid recipients in 10 states – about half of the recipients in those states.
All this unfolds in the wake of another ideologically driven development – the passage and signing of the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” Public Law 115-97, a bad policy for kids in multiple ways, and increasing the U.S. deficit to more than $1.5 trillion.
In an April 9 update, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that figure is now actually $1.9 trillion. Outgoing Speaker Paul Ryan cites the dramatic increase in the deficit as a somewhat gaslighting rationale for further cuts to the nation’s assistance to the poor, particularly Medicaid.
On April 10, the Administration issued a very quiet, broad, and devastating Executive Order that could eviscerate the very purpose, intent, and positive benefits of an array of public assistance programs. The order, with the mind-bending title of “Reducing Poverty in America,” calls for greater barriers for recipients to gain access to Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and low-income housing subsidies.
Once again, if you can’t legislate it, regulate it. Or order it. With Republicans realizing they do not have the public support to legislate changes to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, or other public assistance programs, they are handing the baton to the president. Acknowledging this reality and the president’s order, Representative Tom Cole (R-OK) noted, “I think it’s very tough to get this thing through the Senate when it requires 60 votes. I certainly don’t have any problem with the president taking initiative.”
We are in the midst of an unprecedented, alarmingly quiet, assault on principles that form the foundation of our democracy – health care and assistance to the most vulnerable among us. It’s not 2017 anymore. It’s 2018, with a mid-term election that may be the most consequential ever. We do not have highly publicized rallies and legislative battles. We have a polarized administration determined to quietly accomplish on its own what Congress has not been able to publicly accomplish legislatively. The need to be involved, to educate others, and to work against the dangerous consequences of these actions is greater than ever.
Yesterday, the House Agriculture committee introduced its draft of the 2018 Farm Bill. This major legislation authorizes the nation’s largest federal food assistance program—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP is the first line of defense against hunger and food insecurity for low-income individuals, especially the 19.2 million children who represent nearly half of total SNAP participants. Unfortunately, this Farm Bill is the result of a partisan policy process, and many of its SNAP proposals miss the mark, with dangerous implications for children. They include:
Weakens Categorical Eligibility
Categorical eligibility makes it easier for households in need to receive automatic SNAP eligibility without going through cumbersome asset tests. Federal law requires states to confer “traditional” categorical eligibility, meaning households automatically qualify for SNAP if they receive cash assistance through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or a state assistance fund. However, states also have the option to extend “narrow categorical eligibility,” so that households receiving non-cash benefits through TANF are also automatically eligible. However, this Farm Bill draft would limit the type of non-cash benefits that confer categorical eligibility to “substantial services.” Considering the various categories of state TANF programming, this would no doubt reduce the number of households who can access SNAP more easily through categorical eligibility.
More significantly, this draft would also force states to essentially eliminate the option for Broad Based Categorical Eligibility, which allows states to essentially waive asset testing so long as a family’s income is up to 200 percent Federal Poverty Line. Even though many states currently employ a more generous threshold for Broad Based Categorical Eligibility, the language in the bill would only allow states to employ this option for families earning up to 130 percent of the Federal Poverty Line (unless they have an elderly member). As a result of these changes, states will almost certainly have to implement expensive and time-consuming asset testing for low-income families who would be categorically eligible under current law.
At a practical level, this means that liquid and illiquid assets like savings accounts and vehicles—which are critical for families to achieve economic mobility—could count against a household’s eligibility for food assistance. While the farm bill draft seeks to make some of these requirements more generous (for instance, allowing the exclusion of up to $7,000 in assets, rather than the current $2,000), it represents a major step backwards for states that had waived altogether these counterintuitive and costly restrictions. Similarly, the draft would no longer allow states to increase the SNAP benefit amount going to low-income families who receive heating and energy assistance if they don’t have an elderly member.
These changes will ultimately make it more cumbersome for families to apply for SNAP benefits, and exacerbate the threat of a “benefit cliff” wherein low-income families lose their food assistance if their earnings increase slightly.
Harsher work requirements, including on families with children:
Currently, so-called “Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents” who are aged 18-49 must work at least part time, and, if unemployed, may only remain on SNAP for 3 months. Research suggests work requirements don’t have a meaningful impact on employment outcomes, and the added burden of documentation and paperwork can threaten benefits even when a household is meeting the requirements.
This draft Farm Bill would strengthen and expand this ill-informed policy. It introduces a new unified work requirement: individuals aged 18-59 must either work or be in an approved training program for at least 20 hours a week, and individuals who have children older than 6 are no longer exempt. Making matter worse, the bill would limit the ability of states to waive these requirements (for instance, to protect vulnerable populations like youth aging out of foster care, or in regions with high unemployment rates), while also requiring them to develop expensive training programs and tracking systems.
More than two-thirds of the children on SNAP are school-aged, and these proposals could be devastating for them. Parents who work will now face additional burdensome documentation requirements, which could have a chilling effect on participation. Those who have struggled to find adequate employment, or who can’t afford childcare, may lose benefits. Not only will this mean less food on the table at home, but many school aged children receive school meal eligibility through their family’s SNAP participation status. If kicked off the program, they may face additional barriers to accessing healthy, consistent meals at school.
Potential Disincentives for Immigrant Families
In an effort to monitor SNAP more closely, the draft would create a national system called the Duplicative Enrollment Database to make sure people can’t apply for assistance in multiple states. It would also research and incentivize systems that would allow the federal government to track who is on food stamps, for how long, what the benefits are spent on, and recipient’s employment status, using the recipients’ social security number or substitute social security number. In the context of the Administration’s plans to penalize immigrants seeking legal status if their family members have accessed public benefits, these oversight provisions are cause for alarm, and could further discourage immigrants from utilizing critical programs like SNAP.
Many of these SNAP policies are presented under the guise of promoting work and encouraging self-sufficiency, but the reality is that families, and especially children, must have their basic needs met. If enacted, the above proposals would seriously impede SNAP’s ability to fight hunger and lift children out of poverty during their critical years of development. Lawmakers instead should use the 2018 Farm Bill reauthorization as an opportunity to strengthen and protect SNAP, so that low income and food insecure children have every available tool they need to succeed.
History was made this past Saturday as millions marched in cities around the world, standing in solidarity to prevent more innocent lives from being lost to gun violence and pushing Congress to act on comprehensive gun reform. Each person participating in the March for Our Lives had a unique experience, but all were bound together by an ultimate desire to see change.
The Diamondback reporter Allison “Ally” O’Reilly was in the field in the Washington, D.C., march and First Focus’ Giselle Miranda was across the country to march in Los Angeles.
Ally – Washington D.C.
When I arrived at the march, camera dangling from my neck and phone poised for potential interviews, my first instinct was to scan the crowd. The march had an overwhelming ambiance of hope and togetherness. The weather was warm and bright, there was music and chatter everywhere and almost everyone was there with the same purpose.
There were a lot of speakers at the event who shared their experiences with gun violence. Though their stories were sad at their core, each of them expressed and exuded hopefulness as they spoke out loud to a crowd of over half a million people. An 11-year-old girl named Naomi Wadler gave an impassioned speech about gun violence disproportionately impacts black women and girls. She noted that she and her classmates will be voting in seven years, which served as a reminder to politicians that these student leaders should be taken seriously as they will yield their political power as soon as they turn 18.
As powerful speeches boomed in the background, I approached a man and woman with a stroller holding a sign that read “one child is worth more than all the guns on earth.” The woman was Katie Ryder, 35, who was present with her husband and three kids — a seven-month-old, a two-year-old and a six-year-old.
“Our oldest started kindergarten this fall and so this issue of school shootings has become much closer to at least my heart, probably both of our hearts,” Ryder said, referring to herself and her husband. “I’ve always thought it was awful and I’ve always wanted and voted for better gun control but now it’s real, our kindergartener comes home and tells us about lockdown drills and what kind of world is that? That’s terrible.”
She noted that “banning assault weapons would be a good first step” in changing America’s gun policies and added that the issue of gun violence impacts young people and people of color the most, “which is a whole other problem that could be addressed by decreasing the number of guns circulating in our country. Urban violence is just as big of an issue, suicide is also a huge issue and all of this could be addressed by decreasing access, easy access, to guns.”
The march was not one of sorrow or harping on the past, it was instead a display of hope from individuals who have seen so much pain but look toward so much change. These protesters have seen the damage done by countless mass shootings and instead of cowering in fear they stood up and marched on Pennsylvania Avenue — sending a message of adamancy to their representatives in Congress.
Among the most unifying moments of the day was during Miley Cyrus’ performance of her 2009 classic The Climb. It seemed as though all 500,000-or-so marchers knew every inspiring lyric and were singing along.
Hearing a crowd of mostly young people, fighting for a cause they believe in so deeply, sing the lyrics “The struggles I’m facing, the chances I’m taking / Sometimes might knock me down, but no, I’m not breaking / I may not know it, but these are the moments / That I’m gonna remember most, yeah / Just gotta keep goin’” was emotional — and truly emblematic of the whole afternoon.
Giselle – Los Angeles
I woke up on Saturday morning with a jolt of excitement, an excitement that only grew stronger as I checked my phone that buzzed every few minutes with news alert headlines announcing the overwhelming size of the D.C. march.
“There are 800,000 people marching in DC! Can you believe it!?!” I exclaimed to my boyfriend as we got into our Uber.
Arriving in downtown LA, we were greeted by a sea of people holding colorful signs, music, and amplified voices shouting their words into a microphone for all to hear. The energy, similar to what Ally experienced in DC, was hopeful and filled with raw emotion.
As someone with a keen interest in photography, I wanted to capture every moment of my experience through pictures.
A peaceful crowd moving in two opposite directions. You would think this could get chaotic, but whenever we bumped each other we all just smiled and kept moving. After all, we were all there in support of one another.
Earlier last month Marco Rubio dodged Parkland survivor Cameron Kasky’s question regarding whether he’d accept more campaign money from the NRA.
The President, alongside others, believes arming teachers with guns and installing metal detectors in schools will end mass school-shootings. In reality, there exists little evidence demonstrates that these changes—already implemented in some schools—lead to meaningful impacts on school safety.
How can the federal government afford to arm teachers with guns when it continuously underfunds K-12 public school programs and school infrastructure?
Remember: Communities of colors are disproportionately affected by gun violence. Black students make up 16.6 percent of the school population, but they experience school shootings at twice the rate of white students.
Children and young adults of all ages joined together at the march to voice their opinions. This youth advocacy, similar to the student-led protests during the Civil Rights-era, filled me with a surge of optimism and reassured me that change is inevitable.
Children and young adults of all ages joined together at the march to voice their opinions. This youth advocacy, similar to the student-led protests during the Civil Rights-era, filled me with a surge of optimism and reassured me that change is inevitable.
In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting and these marches, we cannot let our voices fade. For it is only when there is strength and fervor in of our voices that we will see politicians act through sensible policies that keep our children’s best interests in mind. In the words of one of the speakers at the LA March:
“We fight today so the children of the future won’t have to fight tomorrow”
After a day of being behind the camera capturing critical moments, I turned around one last time as I left the march only to be sent into a state of awe at just how many people were at the march. And from that, I got this last shot.
Special thanks to Ally O’Reilly for contributing to the Voices for Kids blog. She is a journalist and writes for the University of Maryland’s student-led newspaper, The Diamondback. See more of her coverage on the march.
The U.S. Constitution requires an accurate count of the nation’s population every 10 years, which is critical to establishing equal government representation and identifying where to allocate federal spending and resources for millions of children and families in our society.
Ensuring a fair, equitable and successful implementation of the decennial census has far-reaching outcomes for the protection of civil rights and our nation’s economic future. This not only includes securing adequate funding for the census, but also reversing the recent decision from the U.S. Department of Commerce to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 questionnaire. If this question remains, it would have severe implications for the reliability of the 2020 data, resulting in significantly lower response rates among immigrant and mixed status families.
This “forward funding” is justified because nearly 70% of the lifecycle costs of the 2020 Census will be incurred in fiscal years 2019 and 2020. The report further explains that making current resources available in those later fiscal years will help to ensure a smoother transition between fiscal years 2018 and 2019. As Congress turns its efforts toward the FY 2019 budget, those of us advocating for a successful decennial census need to keep a watchful eye on the allocation of FY 2018 funding in order to ensure critical preparation activities are not shortchanged.
While it is not completely understood as to why young children are so severely undercounted, we do know children of color are more likely to be overlooked. We also know that 1.3 million children and youth experience homelessness each year, with many more living in unstable housing situations. These children are living in highly mobile households that are likely to be missed entirely by the census. Young children in households that are splitting time between parents, living with grandparents, or residing in multigenerational households are also often not fully accounted for.
Early investments in a child are crucial to place them on the right track to healthy development and success. Child development research shows that kids benefit from resources provided at an early age – and that those resources create a long-term positive impact on every child’s life. Therefore, it is particularly critical we can account for all young children in our society and identify how to allocate resources that provide healthcare, nutrition, early childhood education, and affordable childcare assistance to help support healthy childhood development.
For Hispanic children, the problem of being undercounted is exacerbated by a recent decision from the Department of Commerce to add a question on citizenship in the 2020 census. Coupling this announcement with aggressive and cruel immigration enforcement tactics currently being undertaken by the Trump administration, the expectation becomes a dramatically reduced participation rate from immigrant and mixed status families who fear the negative repercussions of revealing their immigration status.
Title 13, section 141 (f)(2) of the U.S. Code establishes that the Bureau must deliver the 2020 census questions to Congress not later than two years before the appropriate census date, April 1, 2018.
The announcement of the inclusion of a citizenship question, which has been absent from the census since 1950, comes days before that target date and therefore raises serious concerns.
According to the Department of Commerce’s FY 2018 budget justification: “Any changes to the topics or questions after that point would have significant cost and schedule impacts on all English and Non-English questionnaires, the questionnaire vehicles (Internet, telephone, and paper), translation, and printing, and will put the 2020 Census at risk.” Announcing the reinstatement of the citizenship question only five days before the April 1 date technically meets the deadline, but it does not allay the undesirable and serious consequences that will result if this question is added.
The inclusion of a citizenship question will lead to a lower response rate and unreliable data on immigrant and mixed status households. This has severe negative consequences for the protection of the civil rights of these families, resulting in unequal representation and misallocation of government resources in areas with high immigrant populations. Therefore, it is critical for the well-being of children in immigrant families that this decision from the Department of Commerce be overturned.
Therefore, it is imperative that we prioritize investment in our nation’s children.
Yet to understand the funds needed and how to properly allocate them, we need a reliable, accurate count that includes all of our country’s children.
Without adequate funding and a process that encourages responses from immigrant households, the 2020 decennial census will fall far short of the comprehensive, accurate count that is foundational to our democracy and paramount for our children and economic future.
This is part one of our series on the March for Our Lives. Stay tuned for part two.
This weekend, more than 500,000 people mobilized in Washington, D.C., to attend the March for Our Lives. They called upon Congress to take action and pass “a comprehensive and effective bill” to address gun safety. Led by students demanding change, this was the culmination of weeks of engagement, organization, and activism.
I joined with a group of friends covering a wide swath of the political compass, but brought together by the desire for common sense gun laws.
“This is my first march,” said one friend before we left our apartment building, “Not sure how to go about doing this.”
Another replied, “Don’t worry. The kids will guide you.”
Getting to the event was a march in itself. The moment we stepped into the daylight, we saw dozens of people on the sidewalks, signs in-hand, surging toward Pennsylvania Avenue. In the streets, cars pulled over to the roadsides with passengers jumping out to make the rest of the trek on foot.
Passing one corner by a metro stop, a small child held up a poster larger than herself: “Am I worth more than a gun?”
Around 12:00 p.m., the slated start time, we arrived at our destination. The streams of walkers flowed into an ocean of a people, each person advancing forward when there was space to do so. Slowly, but surely, my friends and I were in the thick of it.
On 12th and Pennsylvania, we were nowhere near the stage and no screen was in sight. Yet gleaming at the top of a street pole, a tall bank of speakers told us all we needed to hear.
The program had already begun, with Andra Day and the Baltimore Choir welcoming the vast assembly of marchers with her song “Rise Up.” Soon after, the voices of the students leading the March boomed over the crowd.
Not a single speaker was over the age of 21, but each delivered a powerful speech to grand applause.
Surrounded on all sides with little room to maneuver, we were near the back of the march, by the Trump International Hotel. Whether the building wanted to be part of the event or not, advocates recorded its presence in thousands of Instagram shots.
Inching closer to the center of the center of the street, I was able to catch a glimpse of a large screen and the glowing white dome of the Capitol building. My short stature meant I could only see the screen about 40 percent of the time. Around me, parents hoisted children onto their shoulders so that they could get a better view.
“So many people!” yelled a five-year-old. She later cheered, “I’m from there, too!” when 16-year-old Mya Middleton, from Chicago, took the stage.
Middleton spoke, ”Join me in sharing my pain and my anger. Help us by screaming to the government that we are tired for crying for help to a group of people that have turned their backs on us – despite their reassurance to make our country safer.”
And so, the crowd roared.
The rearguard of any march tends to have its own atmosphere, one similar to but separate from that at the front. Here, at the back of it all, the theme was allyship–loosely defined as taking action to stand in solidarity with others through the constant reexamination of privilege, the recognition of marginalized groups, the commitment to listening, and the ability to put personal needs aside for others. From those adults boosting kids up to see above the crowd to those holding signs advocating for a safer world for children, this was the gathering space for allies.
While screens and speakers held the audience’s attention, independent chants and cheers reverberated through the crowd, sometimes overpowering the humble sound system.
During one pause in the chatter, the speaker bank echoed, “And it feels great!” Far ahead, the crowd began to clap wildly.
“Wait, I missed something. What’d she say?” said a person to my left.
Onstage, the young woman at the podium, Parkland survivor Sam Fuentes, had just vomited on international television. It was moment of unplanned catharsis that everyone needed. Instead of covering it up, she embraced it. That’s leadership.
The historic march is over. A historic fight to protect our children and fellow citizens is here. While Congress was well away on recess during the march itself, they will continue to see this intersectional movement grow as kids lead from the front and their allies–adults–support from the back.
Let us be good allies as we continue to advocate for Congress to:
Require background checks on all gun sales
Restore a ban on “military-style assault weapons”
Ban gun magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds
Toughen penalties on people who sell guns to those who can’t have them
Significantly increase funding for mental health treatment
Collaborate with schools, educators, law enforcement, and others on school safety measures
Raise a glass to all of us. Tomorrow there’ll be more of us.
“Pictures of the bravery and determination of the Birmingham children as they faced the brutal fire hoses and vicious police dogs were splashed on the front pages of newspapers all across America and helped turn the tide of public opinion in support of the Civil Rights Movement’s fight for justice,” recalled Marian Wright Edelman.
Under intense public pressure, Birmingham negotiated a truce with Dr. King and on May 10, Connor was removed from his position.
The Children’s Crusade worked. Historians credit it and the thousands of brave children with shifting public opinion in favor of the movement. Without the children, there would have likely been no March on Washington, no Civil Rights Act of 1963, no Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Fifty-five years later our nation is again learning the power of children to speak truth to justice. On March 24, millions of school-aged children are expected to join the March for Our Lives in over 658 events in local communities across the nation and in Washington, DC. Inspired by the bravery of the students at Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida where a gunman killed 17 people, the students are demanding that their lives and safety become a priority, and that we end gun violence in our schools and more broadly in their communities.
In its mission statement, the students boldly declare that they will “no longer risk their lives waiting for someone else to take action to stop the epidemic of mass school shootings.
The students are demanding that comprehensive and effective legislation be brought before Congress to address gun issues, so that there will be no future Sandy Hooks, Columbines, and Stoneman Douglases.
It’s time for Congress to act with meaningful school safety and gun control legislation aimed at preventing gun violence in schools and communities, and not piecemeal stopgap measures meant to placate the students. In Congress. for example, recent legislative proposals such as the STOP School Violence Act, which would create anonymous reporting systems and provide some funding for states and schools to develop threat assessments and intervention teams would do little to prevent guns from getting in the hands of students and others who intend harm. Likewise, the President’s school safety proposal, which would strengthen efforts to “harden schools” and establish a national commission to investigate ways to arm certain qualified teachers on a voluntary basis, fails to advocate for sensible gun controls, such as universal background checks or an increase in the age requirement to purchase a rifle, something that the president touted in talks with legislators but who has since walked back those components after meeting with the NRA.
These efforts fall far short of the transformative change that the students are calling for to end gun violence in their schools and communities. It will be up to the students and adults who support their advocacy to demand real action now. At First Focus, we join the children across the nation in their crusade for safer schools and communities, in their calls to not make school safety a partisan issue, and in their calls to protect children over guns. To accomplish this, we believe Congress must take concrete actions to:
Require background checks on all gun sales
Restore a ban on “military-style assault weapons”
Ban gun magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds
Toughen penalties on people who sell guns to those who can’t have them
Significantly increase funding for mental health treatment
Collaborate with schools, educators, law enforcement, and others on school safety measures
We call on Congress, the President, and adults across our nation to stand with the children to say Not One More child will be lost to gun violence.
Congress should take note of these powerful voices that are calling on Congress and adults to do what is right for children.
Despite numerous reports by children and young women to adults in positions of power, Dr. Nassar was allowed to continue to maintain his positions with both USA Gymnastics and MSU. The victims told horrific stories, and yet, over the course of years, numerous adults had been told but refused to really listen. Institutions repeatedly chose to look the other away.
Reports of abuse including young athletes at MSU where Dr. Nassar worked. Amanda Thomashow, a cheerleader at the university, filed an official Title IX complaint against Nassar accusing him of violating the school’s sexual harassment policy back in 2014.
CNN reports that, among a number of disturbing issues with the university’s handling of the matter, MSU failed to even report the case to the Department of Education despite having signed a previous agreement with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights to report all reported allegations of sexual assault claims to the agency.
I think that the way that my investigation was handled was not in a way to bring out the truth, but instead it was performed in a way to conceal and protect a pedophile.
Growing evidence indicate that staff at the university were repeatedly told about Nassar’s behavior and abuse over the years, and yet, as softball player Tiffany Thomas Lopez explains in a civil lawsuit filed against the university, they were told by MSU staff that his behavior “was not sexual abuse, that Nassar was a world renowned doctor, and that the plaintiff was not to discuss what happened with Nassar and was to continue seeing him. . . .”
In March 2017, Michigan State University Trustee Joel Ferguson insisted that the investigation into the allegations involving Dr. Nassar would show that his actions were his alone and that Michigan State would be cleared and that “MSU’s going to look great,” despite evidence that gymnasts had reported abuse to MSU staff back in 1997.
More than 200 women have now alleged abuse by Larry Nassar. Even more staggering than that number is the revelation that at least 14 coaches, trainers, psychologists or colleagues had been warned of his abuse. What is truly stomach-turning is the realization that a vast majority of those victims were abused after his conduct was first reported by two teenagers to M.S.U.’s head gymnastics coach as far back as 1997.
Denhollander explains that research shows “pedophiles are also reported at least seven times on average before adults take the reports of abuse seriously and act on them.” In fact, some parents of children abused by Nassar dismissed the complaints by their own children.
Children who are abused or sexually assaulted must not be denied the right to speak out against that violence and abuse. But it is equally important to understand that, if adults are going to fulfill their obligations to protect children and to promote their best interests, they need to really listen to the children themselves. In other words, children have the right to be heard.
It may even take further litigation to protect children.
Most important, we need to encourage and support those brave enough to speak out. Predators rely on community protection to silence victims and keep them in power. Far too often, our commitment to our political party, our religious group, our sport, our college or a prominent member of our community causes us to choose to disbelieve or to turn away from the victim. Far too often, it feels easier and safer to see only what we want to see. Fear of jeopardizing some overarching political, religious, financial or other ideology — or even just losing friends or status — leads to willful ignorance of what is right in front of our own eyes, in the shape and form of innocent and vulnerable children.
The right of children to express their experiences and viewpoints and to have them listened to and taken seriously is a powerful tool through which to challenge incidents of violence, abuse, threats, injustice, or discrimination. Children who are silenced or ignored cannot challenge violence and abuse perpetuated against them. In fact, the consequence of the silencing or dismissal of the voices of children and the abuse they experience has the effect of protecting the abusers rather than the children.
In Australia, a Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse held 57 public hearings over 444 days with over 1,300 witnesses speaking about child sexual abuse. According to Matthew Ricketson and Jennifer Martin, who examined the findings in an article for the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma at Columbia University:
What is important to underscore is the fact that at the centre of every instance of child sexual abuse examined by the commission is a socially sanctioned imbalance of power between the child and those charged with the responsibility of looking after them.
The flood of testimony by adult survivors of abuse over the past four and a half years [in Australia] has revealed many things, not least an unintentionally and bitterly ironic illustration of the original problem of power imbalance. When adults testify to their abuse, they are usually believed; when children, especially those in the care of institutions, testify, they often aren’t. Yet that is when they most need to be heard because that is when they are most vulnerable.
Children have just as much of a right to speak out and have their views respected as anybody else in society, particularly about those things that impact them directly. Violence against children in families, schools, prisons, and institutions can best to tackled if children themselves are enabled and encouraged to tell their stories and be heard by those people with the authority to take action.
For example, to protect children from online sexual abuse and exploitation, it is important and critical that policymakers engage with children to understand how they use the Internet, the degrees and nature of the risk they face on-line, and the policies that they would think would best work to protect them.
Likewise, children with disabilities are the greatest source of knowledge with respect to the discrimination and social exclusion that they face in society and in school settings. These children can be the most effective contributors to identifying the barriers and challenges they face in order to be successful.
Just this past week, the Kentucky legislature finally began the process of protecting children from being subjected to forced marriages. And yet, the legislation has been stalled — not out of concern for the protection of children — but to issues raised by the conservative organization Kentucky Family Foundation about parental rights in these decisions.
One might ask where the voice, the best interest, and the rights of children are being properly considered. As Kentucky Sen. Julie Raque Adams (R-Louisville) said:
It is disgusting that lobbying organizations would embrace kids marrying adults. We see evidence of parents who are addicted, abusive, neglectful pushing their children into predatory arms. Appalling.
Meanwhile, in the case of the forced detention of young children who are fleeing violence, rape, and possibly death in Central America and the separation of them from their parents despite their request for asylum, the voice and best interests of children are clearly being ignored, once again.
“Studies overwhelmingly demonstrate the irreparable harm to children caused by separation from their parents,” write Galacatos, Alan Shapiro, and Brett Stark in an Op-Ed for the New York Times. “Family separation . . . can lead to chronic conditions like depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and heart disease. For that reason, more than 200 child welfare, juvenile justice and child development organizations (including First Focus) signed a letterdemanding that the Trump administration abandon this ill-conceived policy.” They haven’t.
This also includes the case of children who have knowledge and experience with violence — both inside and outside of school. In the case of school shootings, only they and their teachers know what it is really like.
Our political leaders are clueless. President Trump brags that he would have run into the building without a weapon to challenge the gunman, and members of the Florida legislature tried to avoid discussions about assault weapons, bump stocks, and closing loopholes in background checks by changing the subject to other issues like video games and offering “thoughts and prayers.”
It is these students and not the politicians that know what it is like to be on the other end of an assault rifle and who saw their teachers and fellow classmates protect the lives of thousands of kids across the campus. The students and teachers at Stoneman Douglas High School are undoubtedly far greater experts than our lawmakers in understanding what happens in those environments and their expertise needs to be acknowledged when developing laws and policies to reduce exposure to risk.
The public agrees with the students and school administrators. According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, Florida voters oppose arming teachers by a 56–40 percent margin.
Lawmakers also ignore growing evidence that indicate NRA-backed gun policies, such as “stand your ground laws” and permissive concealed carry laws, increase homicides, suicide, violent crime, and accidental firearm injury. In this, our politicians are failing all of us.
Sadly and astonishingly, other adults have chosen to troll the students whose classmates, best friends, and teachers were murdered. Fortunately, it is backfiring.
These kids have been incredible at defending themselves. Here and here are samples of their excellent clapbacks.
Frankly, the students are far too savvy for their Fox News obsessed elders. They are wisely ignoring the trolls. But when they do respond, it is with the perfect mix of facts, attitude, and sass that are used to either reason with, mock, or shame their opponents. Heck, I truly wish I were half as good as the Stoneman Douglas kids.
In the meantime, the adults of this country should be doing a great deal of introspection and soul-searching at this moment in time.
It is our generation that failed the children that have been molested and sexually abused by adult predators and pedophiles. It is our generation that is investing less and less in their education and well-being. It is our generation that is destroying the environment. It is our generation that has allowed child deaths in this nation to exceed those in other wealthy country by an astounding 70 percent. It is our generation that has put unrestricted gun ownership ahead of the lives and safety of our children.
We have repeatedly failed our kids.
Fortunately, there are a growing number of policymakers that get it. Politicians from both political parties have been meeting with the students in the last few weeks in Washington, D.C., and in Tallahassee, Florida. They understand the importance of hearing from and listening to young people from all over this country.
They understand that respecting the voice of children doesn’t mean that you have to agree with everything they say.
But the fact is that children have a stake in what happens in this country now and for decades to come. Frankly, listening to them and hearing them out is only humane, fair, and smart thing to do. It is our best hope for the future.
Jaclyn Corin tweets, “. . . we’ve created a new hope for succeeding generations.” There is no doubt, and we must hear their voice.