# data[].attributes.headline
Inequality and Abortion Access in the United States

# data[].attributes.subject
Inequality and Abortion Access in the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inequality and Abortion Access in the United States

# data[].attributes.headline
Human Rights Crisis: Abortion in the United States After Dobbs

# data[].attributes.subject
Human Rights Crisis: Abortion in the United States After Dobbs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of contents
I. Executive Summary II. Factual Background A. Women's Lives and Health on the Line B. Penalizing Healthcare: Criminalization, Civil Liability, and Involuntary Confinement C. Threats to Privacy from Increased Digital Surveillance D. Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion or Belief E. Disproportionate Impact on Marginalized Populations III. Anti-Abortion Legislation Violates International Law IV. Conclusion and Calls to Action I. Executive Summary
Following the United States (US) Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organizationin June 2022, people in the US who can become pregnant[1] are facing an unprecedented human rights crisis. In Dobbs, the Supreme Court overturned the constitutionally protected right to access abortion, leaving the question of whether and how to regulate abortion to individual states. Approximately 22 million women and girls of reproductive age in the US now live in states where abortion access is heavily restricted, and often totally inaccessible. This briefing paper details the intensifying human rights emergency caused by the decision, and discusses the ways that Dobbs contravenes the US' international human rights obligations.

The consequences of the Dobbs decision are wide ranging. Restrictions on access to healthcare places women's lives and health at risk, leading to increased maternal mortality and morbidity, a climate of fear among healthcare providers, and reduced access to all forms of care. Dobbs also enables penalization and criminalization of healthcare, with providers, patients, and third parties at risk of prosecution or civil suit for their involvement in private healthcare decisions. Relatedly, the decision opens the door to widespread infringement of privacy rights as digital surveillance is expanded to detect violations of new regulations. New bans also infringe on freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, restricting the ability of physicians to counsel patients and clergy to provide pastoral care to their congregants. Finally, the harms of Dobbsviolate principles of equality and non-discrimination; they fall disproportionately on marginalized populations including Black, indigenous, and people of color; people with disabilities; immigrants; and those living in poverty.

By overturning the established constitutional protection for access to abortion and through the passage of restrictive state laws, the US is in violation of its obligations under international law, codified in a number of human rights treaties to which it is a party or a signatory. These human rights obligations include, but are not limited to, the rights to: life; health; privacy; liberty and security of person; to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief; equality and non-discrimination; and to seek, receive, and impart information.

A version of this briefing paper was submitted to UN special procedures mandate holders in March 2023. The submission, cosigned by nearly 200 human rights, reproductive justice, and other concerned groups and individuals, requested urgent action from the UN mandate holders to examine the situation, engage with civil society, and call on the US to uphold its international human rights obligations.

Less than a year on from this catastrophic legal decision, it is now apparent that the consequences are even worse than feared. Women and girls in need of reproductive healthcare are being met with systematic refusals, onerous financial burdens, stigma, fear of violence, and criminalization. Thousands are being forced to remain pregnant against their will.

Part II of this briefing paper outlines the consequences of Dobbson the fundamental human rights of women and girls, as well as the disproportionate impact it has on certain demographics made vulnerable by systemic oppressions. This factual summary includes input from physicians in various states as part of fact-gathering efforts conducted by a number of organizations involved in this submission. Part III discusses the ways in which Dobbs contravenes the US' international obligations. Part IV sets forth our Conclusion and Calls to Action.
II. Factual Background

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned the constitutionally protected right to access abortion,[2] leaving the question of whether and how to regulate abortion to individual states.[3] As of January 17, 2023, abortion is banned, with extremely limited exceptions, in thirteen states: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma.[4] Georgia has banned abortion after six weeks of pregnancy (effectively outlawing access entirely).[5] Approximately 22 million women and girls of reproductive age (ages 15-49) in the US live in states where abortion access is heavily restricted, and often totally inaccessible.[6] Four states have begun restricting access to medication abortions, including by prohibiting the mailing of medication into their jurisdictions.[7] Meanwhile, at least three states (Texas, Oklahoma, and Idaho) enacted so-called "bounty" laws before the Dobbsdecision, empowering private citizens to sue providers who carry out abortions.[8] In continuation of the country's devaluation of the lives of Black and Brown women, communities of color and of lower socio-economic status are bearing the brunt of these laws.[9] Dozens of clinics have closed across the country since Dobbs was decided,[10] increasing travel time and distance for women seeking care - and barring access for those women unable to travel.[11]
A. Women's Lives and Health on the Line

1. The onslaught of legislative abortion restrictions in the US denies women's decisional and bodily autonomyin a way that rejects the agency, dignity, and equality of people who can become pregnant.[12] This draconian attack on gender equality threatens women's lives and health on a massive scale.

2. In the months since Dobbs, two of the organizations involved in this submission have interviewed US healthcare practitioners about the impacts of anti-abortion legislation on women's healthcare.[13] The practitioners' responses describe far-reaching implications for women and girls seeking abortion and other reproductive healthcare, dramatically affecting their health, and resulting in serious - sometimes fatal - risks.

3. These interviews and documentation by women's rights groups describe difficulty, including:

in accessing abortion in cases of miscarriage;

forced travel across state lines in emergencies;

denial of care in cases of ectopic pregnancy;

hospitals delaying care until the woman's health has deteriorated to a level most certainly to fit within narrow and vague "risk to life of the mother" exceptions;

professionals withholding information fearing that their advice could violate anti-abortion laws;

reduced access to non-reproductive healthcare (e.g. chemotherapy);

the infliction of serious psychological harm on women and girls forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy;

complications for adolescents forced to give birth;

reduced access to other forms of reproductive healthcare including contraception;

heightened risk of violence faced by pregnant individuals in abusive relationships; and

pregnant individuals forgoing prenatal care to avoid surveillance.

1. Anti-abortion legislation may also reduce access to reproductive healthcare in states where abortion is still legal, as patients are displaced from restrictive jurisdictions into already-overburdened clinics in jurisdictions where abortion remains legal.

2. Dr. Elissa Serapio, an obstetrics and gynecology specialist (or OB-GYN, a doctor who specializes in pregnancy and female reproductive health), worked in Texas in the aftermath of the state's six-week abortion ban in 2021. Dr. Serapio explained that her colleagues were forced to watch their patients' health deteriorate before providing abortions due to the narrow exceptions for legal abortion where the "life of the mother" is at risk.[17] This challenge, Dr. Serapio noted, applied even when there was a zero percent chance that the pregnancy in question could result in a live birth.[18]

3. Dr. Eleanor Drey, Medical Director of the Women's Options Center and the Family Birth Center at San Francisco General Hospital, explained that physicians in states with abortion bans are now faced with two bad options: leave their patients to suffer harm or else risk prosecution.[19]

4. Several women who have been denied care in this way have bravely shared their experiences publicly. In July 2022, a woman had to travel hundreds of miles to a different state for a lifesaving abortion. Though she was experiencing an ectopic pregnancy (one of the leading causes of maternal mortality in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy)[23] her doctor would not end the pregnancy because he was "worried that the presence of a fetal heartbeat meant treating her might run afoul of new restrictions on abortion."[24]

5. Moreover, risk-averse hospitals often fail to give healthcare teams the information they need to feel comfortable making such a medical decision. In Dr. Serapio's experience, hospitals leave medical teams to make these decisions - and assume the risk that goes with them - alone.[32]

6. The chilling effect of anti-abortion legislation may also cause physicians to withhold information from patients for fear that their medical advice could violate their state's anti-abortion statutes.[33] Doctors report that the rapidly shifting landscape has impacted their ability to counsel patients, including full information on dealing with pregnancy complications and options for patients from across state lines: "We're trying to be very, very careful," said Dr. Katie McHugh, in an interview with National Public Radio (NPR), "And it is so scary to me to know that I'm not only worrying about my patients' medical safety, which I always worry about, but now I am worrying about their legal safety, my own legal safety. The criminalization of both patients and providers is incredibly disruptive to just normal patient care."[34]

7. Dr. Jennifer Griggs, a Professor in the University of Michigan's Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology & Oncology Division, also spoke to the impact of abortion restrictions on women's access to healthcare more broadly - even non-reproductive care.[35] She described how the legal landscape post-Dobbs leaves pregnant people and their clinicians in an untenable situation, risking the life of a pregnant patient by delaying treatment for a range of health conditions.[36] For example, she reported that anti-abortion laws challenge doctors' ability to provide cancer treatment in a timely manner. Because treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation can harm a fetus, particularly during early pregnancy, laws that restrict women's termination options can force them to delay cancer treatments until later in pregnancy when the risks are lowered or until they have given birth. Such delays, however, can put the patient's life at risk.[37] The uncertainty of the law under state abortion bans also has what Dr. Harris refers to as a "coercive negative impact on patients," in which concerns about restrictive or uncertain abortion regulations lead doctors or patients to make suboptimal decisions about a patient's course of treatment.[38]

8. Girls and adolescents are at increased risk of life-threatening consequences owing to delayed reproductive healthcare. Becausegirls and adolescents experience serious pregnancy-related complications at a higher rate than adults,[39] including, trauma to organs,[40] pregnant adolescents are particularly at risk when healthcare providers delay care. Despite this heightened vulnerability, none of the state abortion bans recognize an exception specifically for adolescent pregnancy.[41] Even before Dobbs, young people under 18 in at least 36 states faced "parental involvement" requirements forcing them to notify and/or seek permission from a parent to get an abortion. These restrictions remain in place in more than 20 states where abortion is still legal.[42] While most young people who have abortions voluntarily involve at least one parent in their decision, forced parental involvement laws put young people's health and safety at risk. Young people without a supportive parent to involve in their abortion decision - for example, those who "fear physical or emotional abuse, being kicked out of the home, alienation from their families or other deterioration of family relationships or being forced to continue a pregnancy against their will"[43] - generally have the option to go through a judicial bypass process to request permission from a judge to access abortion care. However, the process for securing a bypass is daunting and unworkable for many young people.[44] A recent study by Human Rights Watch revealed that Florida judges denied more than one in eight young people's petitions in 2020-2021.[45] These children and adolescents were then forced to continue a pregnancy against their wishes, travel outside the state, or seek a way to manage abortion outside the health system.

9. Abortion providers also suffer risk to their physical safety and lives in the US. Both in their clinics and in their homes, many providers and other staff report being in near constant fear of attack from extremists within the anti-abortion movement.[78] Extremist anti-abortion vigilantes have kidnapped, attacked, bombed, and even murdered abortion providers.[79] In 2021 alone, the National Abortion Federation reported 1,465 incidents of violence against providers across the US.[80] The widespread organized campaigns of harassment and violence appear to have been emboldened in recent years by the movement's broader success in restricting abortion.[81] Notably, those who target providers and clinic workers and harass abortion seekers often have ties to violent extremist movements. For instance, a number of violent anti-abortion extremists were documented at the January 6, 2021 coup attempt at the US Capitol.[82] As recently as January 15, 2023, an anti-abortion group carried out an arson attack on a clinic in Illinois.[83]

B. Penalizing Healthcare: Criminalization, Civil Liability, and Involuntary Confinement

1. Following Dobbs, 13 states' statutes now criminalize healthcare providers who perform abortions.[84] Penalties include up to life in prison (Texas)[85] and fines as much as $100,000 (Oklahoma).[86] Some states also impose criminal liability for "aiding or abetting" abortion, making it a crime for any individual, whether a healthcare provider or not, to assist a pregnant person in obtaining an abortion.[87] This can apply to hospital administrative staff, therapists, and other medical professionals who have discussed or provided information about obtaining an abortion; family, friends, or religious leaders; or even rideshare or cab drivers who transport patients to abortion clinics.[88] Employers, family members or friends who contribute financially or provide other forms of support can also be criminalized.[89]

2. Pregnant individuals themselves are also at risk of criminalization.[99] In some states, officials have indicated a willingness to arrest those who self-induce abortion.[100] In Idaho, a statute from 1973 remains a potential threat: a woman "who purposely terminates her own pregnancy otherwise than by a live birth" can be found guilty of a felony.[101] Similarly, some states have begun to explore criminalization approaches based on "fetal personhood,"[102] a concept which attributes legal rights to a fetus.[103] If adopted, these provisions will increase prosecutions targeting pregnant people by classifying abortion as homicide and permitting prosecution of those who receive such treatment for murder or manslaughter.[104] A Louisiana House of Representatives committee voted in May 2022 to amend criminal laws to make abortion qualify as a homicide.[105] While the bill was subsequently withdrawn, other states are exploring fetal personhood approaches to criminalizing a range of pregnancy outcomes.[106]

3. Those targeted for detention and criminalization are more likely to be Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) individuals,[116] contributing to the already disproportionately high level of incarceration of BIPOC persons in the US.[117] For example, out of 413 cases of arrest or forced intervention of pregnant persons documented between 1973 and 2005, 71% were economically disadvantaged women, 59% were women of color, and 52% were Black.[118] Communities of color, especially Black communities, are disproportionately impacted by pregnancy criminalization due in part to the heightened policing of these communities under the auspices of the "war on drugs."[119] As the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health has already described, "given that the country's criminal legal system already disproportionately polices women and girls of African descent, [this] is the population group that suffers the most from increased surveillance and criminalization."[120]

4. The ultimate impacts of abortion criminalization have not yet been fully realized, but it is reasonable to expect this criminalization to have a chilling effect on women's health generally, to increase risks to women's lives, and to lead to further arbitrary detention of women and girls.

C. Threats to Privacy from Increased Digital Surveillance

1. The proliferation of abortion bans in the US has decimated reproductive autonomy - the power to control all aspects of one's reproductive health - which is "at the very core of [individuals'] fundamental right[s] to equality and privacy."[125] The right to privacy of individuals (irrespective of whether or not they are pregnant) and the rights of medical professionals are also threatened by states' use of digital surveillance to track the identities of people who seek or provide reproductive healthcare.

2. Because many states now criminalize abortion, law enforcement officials in these states are using electronic data to prosecute patients or those who help them access abortion.[126] This personal information is wide in scope and may include:

location data to show if someone visited an abortion clinic, substance use disorder treatment center, or other health facility;

search histories on medication abortion, clinics, and general information on abortion;

menstrual cycle tracking applications; and

communications data such as text messages about pregnancy and abortion.[127]

1. The pre-Dobbs case of Latice Fisher, who was charged with second-degree murder after a stillbirth when investigators found the words "mifepristone" and "misoprostol" in her phone's search history, shows how these tactics were used even while Roe was still in force.[128] Now that abortion is explicitly criminalized in many states, law enforcement's use of digital surveillance to track abortions is likely to increase.

2. Purchasing data from brokers provides particularly easy and so-far unregulated law enforcement access to an unprecedented volume of sensitive personal information for use in prosecuting individuals seeking abortions - or even reviewing their options for reproductive care - often without any oversight by courts.[132]

D. Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion or Belief

1. Some forms of anti-abortion legislation in the US infringe upon the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief under international human rights law. First, anti-abortion laws that prevent providers and/or clinic staff from providing abortions to pregnant persons may infringe upon the provider's freedom to manifest their freedom of conscience and religion or belief. For some healthcare providers, their religion or beliefs (including non-theistic beliefs) mandate that they provide healthcare (including abortion) when a person's life, health, or well-being is at risk. For example, Jewish physicians in Florida have explained in a lawsuit that their faith compels them to provide abortion to patients where the patient's life, health or well-being is at risk.[143] For these and other healthcare workers, criminal abortion laws eviscerate their freedom to manifest a key aspect of their faith.[144]

2. Even religious leaders and clergy members risk falling afoul of abortion laws in the US for providing pastoral care, guidance, and religious teaching. For faith leaders whose belief system affirms the right to abortion, counseling on reproductive healthcare in accordance with their faith could fall within the aforementioned broad crime of "aiding or abetting" an abortion. Members of the Unitarian Universalist Church in Florida have been forced to turn to the courts to seek injunctive relief against the law's attempt to punish them for providing ministry and serving their congregants in this way.[145] Specifically, these clergy members underscore that counseling in line with their faith involves explaining the tenet of the "God-given right to self-determination over their own bodies and reproductive lives."[146] But if a pregnant person has an abortion following a conversation on this area of the church's doctrine, the clergy members could face prosecution for aiding, abetting, or encouraging abortion.

3. Crucially, laws that criminally prosecute or otherwise punish people of faith who feel obligated by their religion or belief to help others access abortion, or to counsel congregants on abortion care, do not meet the thresholds set by international law that would permit the State to limit their freedom to practice their religion or belief. The right to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such "limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."[147]

E. Disproportionate Impact on Marginalized Populations

1. Youth with migrant status or with families that have mixed migration or documentation statuses face particular barriers in states where parental consent is required for abortion. For example, immigrant youth may lack access to a qualifying parent living in the country; immigrant parents may not be able to provide legally valid consent if they lack documentation of their legal status; and younger people with migrant status may be deterred from seeking healthcare or involving a parent by a general fear of immigration consequences for themselves or their families.[163] In these cases, immigrant youth may be forced to seek a judicial bypass or remain pregnant involuntarily.[164]

2. State abortion bans have also led to the closure of reproductive health clinics that, in addition to abortion, provide non-abortion-related medical care upon which many individuals from vulnerable groups rely.[165] In general, the states enacting bans have some of the worst healthcare systems in the country and have historically dedicated few resources for low-income residents.[166] Lawmakers passing abortion bans have for years refused to address these problems.

3. These barriers to access create a vicious cycle of poverty and marginalization, reinforcing existing inequalities. A study on abortion access - conducted before Dobbs was decided[176] - illustrates how abortion denial can reinforce economic and social marginalization. Based on thousands of interviews with women who sought, but were denied, an abortion, the study found that such patients are more likely to: (1) be exposed to significant health risks from delivery; (2) experience negative health outcomes over the next five years; (3) scale back their aspirations and career plans; (4) face long-term economic hardship; and (5) raise their children in poverty. In short, as the author of the study explained in a recent article, "we are about to see a deepening of existing inequalities...Being denied an abortion [will] lead[] to . . . greater poverty and health risks."[177]

III. Anti-Abortion Legislation Violates International Law IV. Conclusions and Calls to Action
The US has violated its human rights commitments by removing constitutional protection for reproductive healthcare. The Dobbs decision subjects all those who can become pregnant to barriers to medical care, criminalization and penalization, infringements on privacy and on freedom of conscience, with disproportionate impact on already-marginalized populations. Similarly, the multiplying restrictions on abortion expose healthcare practitioners, clergy, and others to criminalization, professional sanction, and infringements on privacy and on free exercise of thought, conscience and religious belief. These impacts contravene the US's international treaty obligations to protect the rights to: life; health; privacy; liberty and security; freedom from torture or CIDT; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief; equality and non-discrimination; and to seek, receive, and impart information.

In light of these violations, the US must take immediate steps to undo the grave harms caused by the Dobbsdecision. The US should:

1. By overturning the established constitutional protection for access to abortion, and through the passage of the state laws discussed above, the US is in violation of its obligations under international human rights law, codified in a number of human rights treaties to which it is a party or a signatory.

2. Specifically, the US has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),[178] the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD),[179] and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).[180]

3. The US also signed, but has not yet ratified, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),[181] the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW),[182] the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC),[183] and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).[184] As a signatory to these treaties, the US must refrain from acts that would defeat their object and purpose.[185]

4. These treaties enshrine in law numerous complementary human rights. The US has committed to respect and protect these rights; instead, it is infringing them through restrictions on abortion access. As eight Special Procedures mandate holders recently reaffirmed: " Over time, States and human rights bodies clarified that human rights treaty obligations encompass the reproductive rights of women and girls, including safe and legal abortion access."[186] These human rights obligations include, but are not limited to, the rights to: life; health; privacy; liberty and security of person; to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (CIDT); freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief; equality and non-discrimination; and to seek, receive, and impart information.[187]

5. First, abortion laws and policies in the US endanger the life and health of persons seeking abortions and people in need of emergency reproductive healthcare. These policies contravene the US' human rights obligations to respect the right to life[188] and the right to health.[189] As the Human Rights Committee (HRC) has confirmed, States parties to the ICCPR must not adopt anti-abortion measures that "result in violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or girl" and must "provide safe, legal and effective access to abortion where the life and health of the pregnant woman or girl is at risk, or where carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the pregnant woman or girl substantial pain or suffering..."[190] States parties should also "remove existing barriers to effective access by women and girls to safe and legal abortion...and should not introduce new barriers."[191] Other treaty bodies - including the Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee), the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee), and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee) - have unanimously and unambiguously recognized that access to abortion, and the ability to make free decisions regarding abortion, are indispensable to the fulfillment of the right to health.[192]

6. Further, certain state laws, particularly those that criminalize abortion and/or provide no exception in the event of rape, incest, threat to the life or health of the pregnant person, or fatal fetal anomaly,[198] violate the right to be free from torture and other CIDT.[199] The Committee against Torture (CAT Committee) has acknowledged that abortion laws and denial of abortion can result in "physical and mental suffering so severe in pain and intensity as to amount to torture,"[200] a view echoed by the former Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.[201]

7. Abortion bans also infringe upon the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief, specifically the freedom to manifest religion or belief.[212] Manifestation of religion or belief includes "worship, observance, practice and teaching."[213] As the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has outlined, the right involves "not only the "believing," but also the "belonging" and the "behaving" in line with one's religion or belief.[214] This manifestation component of the right, also known as the forum externum, is not, however, unlimited. Article 18(3) of the ICCPR sets out the parameters of the State's authority to limit the freedom to manifest a religion or belief, providing that the right "may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals[215] or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." Governments can apply these limits to freedom of religion or belief only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and the limits must be directly related and proportionate to the specific need on which they are predicated.[216] The HRC and the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief have also clarified that restrictions may not be imposed for discriminatory purposes or applied in a discriminatory manner.[217]

8. Restrictions on a rights-holder's ability to behave in accordance with their religion or beliefs by providing abortion care do not conform to the limits set out in Article 18(3). First, these laws do not fall within the permitted exceptions because they are indeterminate. The HRC has explained that under the first criterion for limiting freedom of religion or belief, "law" must be "formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly and it must be made accessible to the public."[218] As described above, the myriad state laws that criminalize abortion provision and, in some states, "aiding or abetting" an abortion, are plagued by legal ambiguity.[219] As such, for the healthcare provider who is compelled to provide abortions because of their beliefs, the state's efforts to limit their manifestation of their religion or belief is legally indeterminate, and therefore incompatible with Article 18(3).

9. Second, the state's limit on the manifestation of freedom of religion or belief is not sanctioned by international human rights law because it does not serve a legitimate aim under international human rights law. Rather than serve safety, order, health, morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, the abundance of criminal abortion laws that restrict rights-holders' freedom of religion or belief endanger people's lives and violate numerous fundamental human rights.[220] Thirdly, even if such limits on the right could be said to pursue a legitimate aim under Article 18(3), (which, we argue, they cannot) the extreme punitive measures for providing care could not be construed as proportionate. The HRC has clarified that governmental restrictions on a right must be the least restrictive among all the adequate measures that could be applied.[221]

10. Restricting access to abortion discriminates against women and girls, breaching the right to equality and freedom from discrimination on the basis of gender.[222] In its communications to the State party in Mellet v. Ireland and Whelan v. Ireland, the HRC outlined the gender discriminatory nature of abortion criminalization, noting that Ireland's criminal abortion law subjected women "to a gender-based stereotype of the reproductive role of women primarily as mothers" and that "stereotyping [a woman] as a reproductive instrument subjected her to discrimination."[223]

11. The CEDAW Committee has explicitly recognized the gender-discriminatory nature of abortion restrictions: "It is discriminatory for a State party to refuse to provide legally for the performance of certain reproductive health services for women."[224] Elaborating on the discriminatory nature of the restrictive legal landscape for abortion in Northern Ireland in 2018, the CEDAW Committee further found, "that the failure to combat stereotypes depicting women primarily as mothers exacerbates discrimination against women and violates article 5, read with articles 1 and 2, of the Convention."[225] Similarly, the UN Working Group on discrimination against women and girls (WGDAW) has emphasized that "the right to safe termination of pregnancy is an equality right for women."[226]

12. The CRC Committee has highlighted the discrimination faced by youth seeking abortions, finding that "particular efforts need to be made to overcome barriers of stigma and fear experienced by, for example, adolescent girls, girls with disabilities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex adolescents, in gaining access to such services."[235] The Committee also urged states to eliminate barriers, such as third-party consent or authorization requirements, that block adolescents and children from accessing abortion care, and recommended that states "decriminalize abortion to ensure that girls have access to safe abortion and post-abortion services, review legislation with a view to guaranteeing the best interests of pregnant adolescents and ensure that their views are always heard and respected in abortion-related decisions."[236]

13. Finally, some restrictions on abortion implicate the human rights obligations of private companies. Corporations have obligations to respect human rights, safeguard users' rights to privacy, and ensure their services are not used in ways that cause or contribute to human rights violations.[237] This includes adopting policies that protect users from unwarranted government surveillance and harassment.[238]

14. Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that the Dobbs decision was greeted with international condemnation. Then-UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet Jeria described the decision as a "setback after five decades of protection for sexual and reproductive health and rights..."[239] UN human rights experts representing diverse mandates concluded that Dobbs is "a shocking and dangerous rollback of human rights that will jeopardize women's health and lives... [and it is] a monumental setback for the rule of law and for gender equality. With the stroke of a pen and without sound legal reasoning, the US Supreme Court has stripped women and girls in the United States of legal protections necessary to ensure their ability to live with dignity."[240

15. Enact a federal law that enshrines the right to abortion access as a human right in accordance with the 2022 World Health Organization Abortion Care Guidelines[241] and that preempts state laws restricting abortion.

16. Take measures at the state and federal level to:

1. Ensure the right to safe and legal abortion and reproductive healthcare;

2. Ensure the right to seek information and consultation regarding birth control and pregnancy options;

3. Require all health services to be provided in compliance with human rights standards;

4. Ensure access to a full range of modern contraception, without discrimination or coercion;

5. Remove all legal obstacles, including parental involvement laws, to accessing affordable, non-discriminatory, and quality comprehensive sexual and reproductive healthcare, including safe abortion;

6. Protect the confidentiality of persons who can become pregnant and medical professionals by: (1) limiting the collection of patient data; (2) prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information to any third parties, including law enforcement, without consent; and (3) informing patients of their right to privacy and the confidentiality of their visit and queries;

7. Protect medical professionals who provide abortion and other reproductive healthcare by prohibiting their prosecution, disbarment, loss of license, or other retribution or reprimanding measures;

8. Fund medical facilities that provide access to abortion care and evidence-based, non-biased pregnancy and abortion-related information and counseling, especially in areas where minority and marginalized populations reside;

9. Adopt a federal law that prohibits the criminalization of interstate travel for medical care, and assistance thereof;

10. Address discrimination on the basis of disability throughout all aspects of reproductive healthcare;

11. Address racial and ethnic origin discrimination in healthcare and health outcomes directly, through measures that: (1) remedy structural racism and intersectional discrimination; (2) make resources available to communities of color affected by reproductive health inequities; and (3) prioritize the meaningful participation and leadership of BIPOC people in all systems and at all points of decision-making processes that impact their reproductive health and rights.

As previously noted, a version of this briefing paper was submitted to UN special procedures mandate holders in March 2023. The submission requested urgent action from the UN mandate holders to examine the situation, engage with civil society, and call on the US to uphold its international human rights obligations.

The US has taken a dramatic step backwards in the protection of human rights by removing national safeguards for people who can become pregnant's health, liberty, autonomy, privacy, and equality. The harms documented in the foregoing pages will only multiply as restrictions on essential healthcare increase.

____________________

[1] This paper refers interchangeably to "people who can become pregnant" and "women and girls" as the targets of laws restricting abortion. Although most people who can become pregnant and require abortion services are cisgender women, we recognize that people with diverse gender identities may also need abortions and are profoundly affected by abortion restrictions. For more information on the need for abortion services amongst trans, non-binary and gender diverse people in the United States, see H. Moseson et al., Abortion experiences and preferences of transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people in the United States, 224 Am. J. Obstetrics & Gynecology 4 (2021); American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ACOG Committee Opinion: Health Care for Transgender and Gender Diverse Individuals, 137 Obstetrics & Gynecology 3, p. e80-e81 (Mar. 2021), https://www.acog.org/-/media/project/acog/acogorg/clinical/files/committee-opinion/articles/2021/03/health-care-for-transgender-and-gender-diverse-individuals.pdf.

[2] Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022) (Dobbs v. JWHO).

[5] See id. See also Center for Reproductive Rights, "After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws By State," https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/. Ohio passed a similar six-week ban, but the provision has been blocked by a court and is currently on hold indefinitely. See "Tracking the States Where Abortion is Now Banned," The New York Times (updated 6 Jan. 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html.

[6] Guttmacher Institute, "100 Days Post-Roe: At Least 66 Clinics Across 15 US States Have Stopped Offering Abortion Care" (6 Oct. 2022), https://www.guttmacher.org/2022/10/100-days-post-roe-least-66-clinics-across-15-us-states-have-stopped-offering-abortion-care.

[7] Guttmacher Institute, State Legislation Tracker: Medication Abortion (updated 31 Dec. 2022) https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy.

[8] Okla. Stat. tit. 63, §1-745.33-.34, .38 (2022); Idaho Code §§ 18-8804, 18-8807; Texas Heartbeat Act, Senate Bill 8 (SB 8) (20 Mar. 2021). See also S. Murphy, "Oklahoma Governor Signs the Nation's Strictest Abortion Ban," AP News (25 May 2022), https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-health-texas-oklahoma-ad37e8db8a0f3fd9f4fcd215f8a3ed0a. These laws are still in effect post-Dobbs.

[9] See CERD Committee, Concluding observations on the combined tenth to twelfth reports of the United States of America (U.N. Doc. CERD/C/USA/CO/10-12) (21 Sept. 2022), ¶ 35. See also Global Justice Center, "United States of America: Submission to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination," pp. 11-12 https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2022/07/SBRWI_HRW_GJC_AI_CERDShadowReport.pdf; Guttmacher Institute, "Inequity in US Abortion Rights and Access" (17 Jan. 2023), https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/01/inequity-us-abortion-rights-and-access-end-roe-deepening-existing-divides.

[10] Abortion Care Network, "Communities Need Clinics, The New Landscape of Independent Abortion Clinics in the United States" (2022 Report), https://abortioncarenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/communities-need-clinics-2022.pdf.

[11] Guttmacher Institute, "100 Days Post-Roe: At Least 66 Clinics Across 15 US States Have Stopped Offering Abortion Care" (6 Oct. 2022), https://www.guttmacher.org/2022/10/100-days-post-roe-least-66-clinics-across-15-us-states-have-stopped-offering-abortion-care.

[12] For more on the autonomy, dignity and equality impacts of abortion restrictions, see CEDAW Committee, Inquiry concerning the U.K. and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to CEDAW (U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/OP.8/GBR/1, 17) (6 Mar. 2018) ("criminalization has a stigmatizing impact on women and deprives them of their privacy, self-determination and autonomy of decision, offending women's equal status, constituting discrimination."). See also Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice, Women's Autonomy, Equality and Reproductive Health in International Human Rights: Between Recognition, Backlash and Regressive Trends (Oct. 2017) ("both the CEDAW Committee and the WGDAW determined that the right to safe termination of pregnancy is an equality right for women.").

[13] Foley Hoag LLP, legal counsel to the Global Justice Center, interviewed medical professionals, including three OBGYNs (Drs. Harris, Serapio, and Drey), as well as a researcher who studies the impact of abortion on women (Dr. Foster). The methodology for these interviews included providing each interviewee with background on the purpose of the submission to the Mandate Holders and then asking about their general views about the change in laws as experienced by them, and their experience (before and after the change) performing abortions, treating patients who sought abortions, or otherwise treating patients. PHR engaged in a series of discussions with various medical sector stakeholders and clinicians post-Dobbs to understand the scope and nature of impacts of the decision on clinicians in the U.S., including specifically medical students through PHR's Student Advisory Board.

[14] Interview by Foley Hoag LLP with Dr. Lisa Harris (4 Nov. 2022).

[15] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973) (recognizing "the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability").

[16] Id. Dr. Harris also reported that many colleagues only feel comfortable providing abortion care in hospital settings, rather than clinics where abortion care is normally provided because they perceive the risk of prosecution to be lower in hospitals than in an outpatient setting. See Mich. Const. art. 1, § 28 (recognizing a fundamental individual right to reproductive freedom, including abortion care, adopted by ballot initiative Nov. 2022).

[17] Interview by Foley Hoag LLP with Dr. Elissa Serapio (29 July 2022).

[19] Interview by Foley Hoag LLP with Dr. Eleanor Drey (15 July 2022).

[20] See e.g., E. Woodruff, "Louisiana hospital denies abortion for fetus without a skull" (17 Aug. 2022), https://www.nola.com/news/healthcare_hospitals/article_d08b59fe-1e39-11ed-a669-a3570eeed885.html. A Louisiana woman was denied an abortion in by a hospital after her fetus was diagnosed with acrania - developing without a skull - a condition considered "uniformly fatal in the perinatal period." Because acrania did not appear on a state list of conditions considered to render a fetus "medically futile," Louisiana doctors declined to perform the abortion, despite the physical and psychological health risks of continuing a pregnancy that will end in stillbirth or death within hours of birth.

[21] See generally Sens. Elizabeth Warren et al., Post-Roe Abortion Bans Threaten Women's Lives: Health Care Providers Speak Out on the Devastating Harm Posed by Abortion Bans and Restrictions (Oct. 2022), https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Abortion%20Care%20Oversight%20Report1.pdf. See also T. Weinberg, "Missouri doctors fear vague emergency exception to abortion ban puts patients at risk," Missouri Independent (2 July 2022), https://missouriindependent.com/2022/07/02/missouri-doctors-fear-vague-emergency-exception-to-abortion-ban-puts-patients-at-risk/.

[22] For example, in the Dominican Republic, where abortion is criminalized, "[m]edical providers said that criminal penalties for abortion made it difficult for them to exercise their best judgment and provide the best standard of care when their pregnant patients faced serious health risks." Human Rights Watch, "'It's Your Decision, It's Your Life' The Total Criminalization of Abortion in the Dominican Republic" (19 Nov. 2018), https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/11/19/its-your-decision-its-your-life/total-criminalization-abortion-dominican-republic. In Poland, where abortion is almost completely outlawed, pregnant women with cancer have been prevented from obtaining an abortion or otherwise accessing chemotherapy due to the potential harm to the fetus, placing more importance on the fetus than the pregnant person. See Human Rights Watch, "Regression on Abortion Harms Women in Poland" (26 Jan. 2022), https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/26/regression-abortion-harms-women-poland; Amnesty International, "Poland: A Year On, Abortion Ruling Harms Women" (19 Oct. 2021), https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/10/poland-a-year-on-abortion-ruling-harms-women/.

[23] See UC Davis Health, "7 things to know about ectopic pregnancy" (22 Mar. 2022), https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/7-things-to-know-about-ectopic-pregnancy/2022/05; J. Tenore, Ectopic Pregnancy, 61(4) Am Fam Physician 1080 (2000), https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2000/0215/p1080.html.

[24] F. Sellers & F. Nirappil, "Confusion post-Roe spurs delays, denials for some lifesaving pregnancy care," The Washington Post (16 July 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/07/16/abortion-miscarriage-ectopic-pregnancy-care.

[27] See P. Belluck, "They Had Miscarriages, and New Abortion Laws Obstructed Treatment," The New York Times (17 July 2022), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/17/health/abortion-miscarriage-treatment.html. See also A. Redinger & H. Nguyen, Incomplete Abortions, StatPearls [Internet] (27 June 2022), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559071/ (describing "complications that can arise after the management of incomplete abortion including death, uterine rupture, uterine perforation, subsequent hysterectomy, multisystem organ failure, pelvic infection, cervical damage, vomiting, diarrhea, infertility, and/or psychological effects.").

[30] See e.g., Fla. Stat. § 390.0111 (1)(a) (requiring for any abortion after 15 weeks gestational age that "Two physicians certify in writing that, in reasonable medical judgment, the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the pregnant woman's life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition.")

[31] Interview by Foley Hoag LLP with Dr. Elissa Serapio (29 July 2022).

[33] J. Glenza, "A Severe Chilling Effect': Abortion Bans Will Inhibit Doctors' Advice to Patients, Experts Fear," The Guardian (6 May 2022), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/06/abortion-bans-patient-doctor-medical-advice; (Noting the chilling effect of abortion bans among doctors counseling patients on options during pregnancy, including whether abortion care could be available in another jurisdiction).

[34] S. Simmons-Duffin, "Doctors Weren't Considered in Dobbs, But Now They're on Abortion's Legal Front Lines," NPR (3 July 2022), https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/03/1109483662/doctors-werent-considered-in-Dobbs-but-now-theyre-on-abortions-legal-front-lines. For more on criminalization, see infra Section I(B).

[35] Interview by Physicians for Human Rights with Dr. Jennifer Griggs (22 Nov. 2022).

[38] Interview by Foley Hoag LLP with Dr. Lisa Harris (4 Nov. 2022). Dr. Harris described a patient pregnant with twins who experienced a complication requiring the termination of one fetus for the other to survive. This procedure should normally be completed after a certain stage of pregnancy to minimize the chance of complications or death. However, due to concerns over the shifting legal landscape, the patient elected to have the procedure earlier than medically advised. This decision - prompted by abortion bans and legal uncertainty - placed the health of the mother and the remaining fetus at risk.

[39] See World Health Organization, "Adolescent Pregnancy" (15 Sept. 2022), https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-pregnancy; D. Jeha et. al., A review of the risks and consequences of adolescent pregnancy, 8 J. Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine (2015), pp. 1, 3.

[40] D. Jeha et. al., A review of the risks and consequences of adolescent pregnancy, 8 J. Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine (2015), p. 3.

[42] Guttmacher Institute, "Parental Involvement in Minors' Abortions," (updated 1 Jan. 2023), https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/parental-involvement-minors-abortions.

[43] In some states with parental notification requirements, there are provisions for judicial bypass of the requirement; however, the process for securing a bypass is daunting and unworkable for many girls and adolescents, requiring them to demonstrate that they are "1) sufficiently mature and well enough informed to make an abortion decision without parental involvement, and/or that 2) parental involvement is not in their best interests." Perversely, these requirements can result in a judicial finding that a minor is "not sufficiently mature" to make an informed abortion decision, therefore forcing the child to remain pregnant and give birth. See, e.g., Human Rights Watch, "The Only People It Really Affects Are the People It Hurts" (11 Mar. 2021), https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/03/11/only-people-it-really-affects-are-people-it-hurts/human-rights-consequences.

[44] Id. In most states, to obtain a judicial waiver, young people must demonstrate that they have sufficient maturity to have an abortion without parental involvement, or that parental involvement is not in their best interest. Perversely, these requirements can result in a judicial finding that a minor is "not sufficiently mature" to make an informed abortion decision, therefore forcing the child to remain pregnant and potentially give birth.

[45] Human Rights Watch, "Access Denied: How Florida Judges Obstruct Young People's Ability to Obtain Abortion Care" (19 Feb. 2023), https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/02/09/us-florida-judges-block-youth-abortion-access

[46] S. Roberts et al., Risk of violence from the man involved in the pregnancy after receiving or being denied an abortion, 12 Cent BMC Medicine 144 (2014) (explaining that women denied an abortion remain tethered to abusive partners and at risk for continued violence, even if they leave the relationship).

[48] See Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Violence Against Native Peoples Fact Sheet (2020), https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/tribal/Violence-Against-Native-Peoples-Fact-Sheet.pdf (estimating that 48% of American Indian and Alaskan Native women will experience sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking from an intimate partner) (citing The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Violence Prevention (updated 19 July 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/datasources/nisvs/index.html); Women of Color Network, "Life in the Margins: Expanding Intimate Partner Violence Services for Women of Color by Using Data as Evidence" (June 2017), https://vawnet.org/material/life-marginsexpanding-intimate-partner-violence-services-women-color-using-data-evidence (showing that "[a]pproximately four out of every ten non-Hispanic Black women . . . have been the victim of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime").

[49] Of the statutes banning abortion in the US, none include exceptions to protect a pregnant person's mental health. Some specifically exclude physical harms related to psychological distress. For example, Idaho's law explicitly states that "No abortion shall be deemed necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman because the physician believes that the woman may or will take action to harm herself" (Idaho Code § 18-622(1)(a)).

[50] Interview by Foley Hoag LLP with Dr. Eleanor Drey (15 July 2022).

[51] See U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Reinforcement of EMTALA Obligations specific to Patients who are Pregnant or are Experiencing Pregnancy Loss (11 July 2022), https://www.cms.gov/files/document/qso-22-22-hospitals.pdf. See also U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Letter to U.S. Governors on Reproductive Health Care (26 Aug. 2022), https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs-letter-to-governors-reproductive-health-care.pdf.

[52] Interview by Foley Hoag LLP with Dr. Eleanor Drey (15 July 2022). Dr. Drey reported treating a pediatric patient whose pregnancy was caused by rape, who experienced post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms every time the fetus moved and was at risk of suicide as a result.

[53] Evidence from other restrictive contexts confirms this connection. In El Salvador, the state's draconian abortion ban has driven many pregnant women and girls to end their own lives. According to a 2014 report, suicide accounts for 57% of deaths of pregnant females aged 10-19 in El Salvador, though due to stigma surrounding adolescent pregnancy and sexuality, this number may be much higher than reported. Amnesty International, "On the Brink of Death: Violence Against Women and the Abortion Ban in El Salvador" (25 Sept. 2014), https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/AMR29/003/2014/en/.

[54] See e.g., J. Rovner, "Women Who Tried to Commit Suicide While Pregnant Gets Bail," NPR (18 May 2022), https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/05/18/153026015/bail-granted-for-indiana-woman-charged-in-attempted-feticide (discussing a woman who, under pre-Dobbs laws, was arrested for murder after she attempted suicide while pregnant and her baby died after being born). See also Pregnancy Justice, "When Fetuses Gain Personhood: Understanding the Impact on IVF, Contraception, Medical Treatment, Criminal Law, Child Support, and Beyond" (17 Aug. 2022), https://pregjustdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Fetal-Personhood-Issue-8.17.22.pdf. See also "Who Do Fetal Homicide Laws Protect? An Analysis for a Post-Roe America," Pregnancy Justice (9 Jan. 2023), https://www.pregnancyjusticeus.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Feticide-Brief-w-Appendix.pdf.

[55] Bei Bei Shuai v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1106-CR-486, Court of Appeals of Indiana (2012).

[56] See R. Baldwin III, "Losing a pregnancy could land you in jail in post-Roe America," NPR (3 July 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03/1109015302/abortion-prosecuting-pregnancy-loss (stating that the number of cases where pregnancy or pregnancy loss was used in a criminal investigation or prosecution nearly quadrupled from 2006-2020).

[57] See K. L. Gilbert et al., "Dobbs, another frontline for health equity," Brookings Institution (30 June 2022), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2022/06/30/Dobbs-another-frontline-for-health-equity/ ("Reducing access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions, rather, it has the effect of reducing access to reproductive health care."). See also J. Christensen & T. Sneed, "At least 43 abortion clinics shut in month after Supreme Court overturned Roe, research says, with more likely to close," CNN (28 July 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/28/health/abortion-clinics-shut-guttmacher/index.html; C. Vestal, "New Research Shows State Restrictions Reduce Contraception Use," Pew (22 Sept. 2022), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/09/22/new-research-shows-state-restrictions-reduce-contraception-use; M. Ollove, "Critics Fear Abortion Bans Could Jeopardize Health of Pregnant Women," Pew (22 June 2022), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/06/22/critics-fear-abortion-bans-could-jeopardize-health-of-pregnant-women.

[58] See M. Zahn, "Abortion clinics in embattled states face another challenge: Money," ABC News (15 Aug. 2022), https://abcnews.go.com/Business/abortion-clinics-embattled-states-face-challenge-money/story?id=87945089 ("Many abortion clinics now must choose between two costly options: stay open but stop providing abortions, or move to an abortion-friendly state, clinic officials and reproductive health organizations told ABC News.").

[60] See O. Goldhill, "After Dobbs, U.S. medical students head abroad for abortion training no longer provided by their schools," STAT (22 Oct. 2022), https://www.statnews.com/2022/10/18/medical-students-heading-abroad-for-abortion-training/ (detailing how medical schools in states with abortion bans are pairing up with programs in other states that allow abortions in an attempt to ensure that future doctors are adequately prepared. Many students interested in reproductive healthcare are considering moving to states where abortions are legal.).

[61] K. Vinekar et al., Projected Implications of Overturning Roe v Wade on Abortion Training in U.S. Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Programs, 140(2) Obstetrics & Gynecology 146 (2022), p. 147.

[62] J. Hoffman, "OB-GYN Residency Programs Face Tough Choice on Abortion Training," New York Times (27 Oct 2022) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/27/health/abortion-training-residency-programs.html. See also Interview by Physicians for Human Rights with Allison Lenselink (24 Nov. 2022).

[63] "Health coverage if you're pregnant, plan to get pregnant, or recently gave birth," HealthCare.Gov, https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-im-pregnant-or-plan-to-get-pregnant/ (last accessed: 10 Jan. 2023).

[64] M. Clark & A. Osorio, Medicaid Pregnancy Coverage Fills a Critical Health Insurance Gap During Pandemic, Data Shows, Georgetown University Health Policy Institute (31 Mar. 2022), https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2022/03/31/medicaid-pregnancy-coverage-fills-a-critical-health-insurance-gap-during-pandemic-data-shows/.

[65] March of Dimes, "Health insurance during pregnancy," https://www.marchofdimes.org/find-support/topics/planning-baby/health-insurance-during-pregnancy (last accessed: 10 Jan. 2023).

[66] M. Boone & B. J. McMichael, State-Created Fetal Harm, 109 The Georgetown L. Journal 475 (2021), pp. 496-98.

[69] F. Sellers & F. Nirappil, "Confusion post-Roe spurs delays, denials for some lifesaving pregnancy care," The Washington Post (16 July 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/07/16/abortion-miscarriage-ectopic-pregnancy-care/.

[70] L. Paltrow & J. Flavin, Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States, 1973-2005: Implications for Women's Legal Status and Public Health, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, https://read.dukeupress.edu/jhppl/article/38/2/299/13533/Arrests-of-and-Forced-Interventions-on-Pregnant.

[71] "West Virginia's only abortion clinic stops performing abortions," The Associated Press (24 June 2022), https://www.wsaz.com/2022/06/24/west-virginias-only-abortion-clinic-stops-performing-abortions/.

[72] N. Lakhani, "Abortion is still legal in Arizona. But confusion and fear abound," The Guardian (15 Aug. 2022), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/15/arizona-abortion-laws-ban-access.

[74] "Hospitals Fear Abortion Bans Will Worsen Staff Shortages," Bloomberg Law (updated 9 Aug. 2022), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/hospitals-fear-abortion-bans-will-worsen-staff-shortages ("fears of being arrested for prescribing medications that could be unsafe for pregnancy, or for advising chemotherapy that requires ending a pregnancy... 'The irony is that in states that pass these anti-abortion laws, there will be fewer OB GYN doctors willing to practice there. But there will be more need for them because there will be more pregnancies going to term,' said Suzanna Sherry, a constitutional law expert at Vanderbilt University Law School.").

[75] K. Schorsch, "Staffing shortages in Illinois for abortion care," NPR-WBEZ (12 May 2022), npr.org/local/309/2022/05/12/1098469190/staffing-shortages-in-illinois-for-abortion-care ("Illinois providers are expecting an additional 20,000 to 30,000 patients a year as people travel from other states that could ban or heavily restrict the procedure. That would be a nearly two-thirds increase in abortions across Illinois." An Illinois doctor cites the healthcare worker shortage as "perhaps the biggest barrier to a full-scale increase that would meet the needs of folks coming from other states.").

[76] Interview by Foley Hoag LLP with Dr. Elissa Serapio (29 July 2022). See also E. Reyes, "These California Nurse-Midwives Want to Provide Abortions. They're Struggling to Get Trained," Los Angeles Times (18 July 2022), latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-18/california-nurse-midwives-want-to-provide-abortions-struggling-to-get-trained.

[77] See S. Aksel et al., Unintended Consequences: Abortion Training in the Years after Roe v Wade, 103Am. J. Public Health 3 (2013) (explaining how provider shortages have created barriers to abortion access); American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Committee Opinion: Abortion Training and Education (Nov. 2014), https://www.acog.org/-/media/project/acog/acogorg/clinical/files/committee-opinion/articles/2014/11/abortion-training-and-education.pdf (Healthcare providers face institutional barriers in getting trained to perform abortions); E. Declercq et al., "The U.S. Maternal Health Divide: The Limited Maternal Health Services and Worse Outcomes of States Proposing New Abortion Restrictions," The Commonwealth Fund (14 Dec. 2022), https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2022/dec/us-maternal-health-divide-limited-services-worse-outcomes (maternity care providers may hesitate to work in scenarios where they may face legal challenges).

[78] See generally D. Cohen & K. Connon, Living in the Crosshairs : the Untold Stories of Anti-Abortion Terrorism (2015) (in-depth accounts and data regarding the violence and harassment endured by women's health professionals).

[80] National Abortion Federation, 2021 Violence & Disruption Statistics (19 May 2022), https://prochoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021_NAF_VD_Stats_Final.pdf. See also U.S. Dept. of Justice, Recent Cases on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers (updated 18 Oct. 2022), https://www.justice.gov/crt/recent-cases-violence-against-reproductive-health-care-providers.

[81] A January 2020 unclassified report from the FBI outlined an ongoing increase in anti-abortion threats, disruption and violence, stating, "The FBI assess the increase in abortion-related extremist violent threats and criminal activity, including violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, against targets including reproductive healthcare facilities (RHCFs) likely is driven in part by the recent rise in state legislative activities related to abortion services and access." (emphasis added); National Abortion Federation, 2020 Violence & Disruption Statistics (2021), p. 2, https://prochoice.org/our-work/provider-security/#dflip-df_13683/3/.

[82] See supra note 87. See also J. Winter, "The Link Between the Capitol Riot and Anti-Abortion Extremism," The New Yorker (11 Mar. 2021), https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-link-between-the-capitol-riot-and-anti-abortion-extremism; C. Sherman, "Anti-Abortion Activists Were All Over the Capitol Riots," Vice News (12 Jan. 2021), https://www.vice.com/en/article/4ad73w/anti-abortion-activists-were-all-over-the-capitol-riots.

[83] No patients or staff were present during the attack; a firefighter sustained life threatening injuries. T. Bella, "Arson Suspected at Illinois Planned Parenthood After State Expands Abortion Rights," Washington Post (19 Jan. 2023), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/01/19/abortion-planned-parenthood-arson-illinois/.

[84] See Tex. Health & Safety Code §170A.004, La. Stat. Ann. §14:87.7 (2022), Idaho Code §18-622 (2022), Ala. Code § 26-23H, ​​Ark. Code Ann. § 5-61-304, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 311.772, § 188.017 R.S.Mo., Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 1-731.4, Miss. Code Ann. § 41-41-45, S.D. Codified Laws § 22-17-5.1, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-201, Wis. Stat. Ann. § 940.04, W. Va. Code § 61-2-8 (currently under an injunction).

[85] The Texas abortion ban classifies any attempt to induce an abortion as a second-degree felony if unsuccessful (punishable by up to 20 years in prison) and as a first degree felony (up to life in prison) "if an unborn child dies as a result of the offense." Tx. Code § 170A.004(b).

[86] Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 1-731.4.

[87] For example, Texas's pre-Roe abortion ban explicitly included accomplice liability ("Whoever furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended is guilty as an accomplice") Tex. Pen. Code art. 1192 (1925), https://www.sll.texas.gov/assets/pdf/historical-statutes/1925/1925-3-penal-code-of-the-state-of-texas.pdf#page=279. Other states, in defining abortion as a felony, have imported generally applicable aiding and abetting provisions. See, e.g., Guidance for Oklahoma law enforcement following Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org (31 Aug. 2022) (citing Oklahoma definitions of principal and accessory criminal liability, and opining, "Oklahoma law prohibits aiding and abetting the commission of an unlawful abortion, which may include advising a pregnant woman to obtain an unlawful abortion. See 21 O.S. §§ 171-172, 861..."). Meanwhile, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, and Ohio have considered such a provision. See H.B. 4327, 2022 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Okla. 2022); H.B. 23, 2022 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2022); H.B. 2483, 55th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2022); S.B. 13, 93rd Gen. Assemb., 2nd Extraordinary Sess. (Ark. 2021); H.B. 167, 124th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2022); H.B. 480, 134th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ohio 2021). See also J. Tolentino, "We're Not Going Back to the Time Before Roe. We're Going Somewhere Worse," The New Yorker (24 June 2022), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/we-are-not-going-back-to-the-time-before-roe-we-are-going-somewhere-worse/amp.

[88] R. Klitzman, "Opinion: Roe's reversal doesn't just hurt women - it harms us all," CNN (25 June 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/25/opinions/medical-ethics-post-roe-world-klitzman/index.html. See also J. Tolentino, "We're Not Going Back to the Time Before Roe. We're Going Somewhere Worse," The New Yorker (24 June 2022), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/we-are-not-going-back-to-the-time-before-roe-we-are-going-somewhere-worse/amp. Virtually all of the "trigger laws" punish those conducting and/or aiding an abortion. See also A. Zablocki & M. Sutrina, "The Impact of State Laws Criminalizing Abortion," Lexis Nexis (27 Sept. 2022), https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/practical-guidance-journal/b/pa/posts/the-impact-of-state-laws-criminalizing-abortion (Noting potential aiding and abetting liability for employers who provide support or time off for employees to obtain abortions; for medical personnel who advise or assist; for individuals who facilitate; or for health plans that cover the procedure); K.E. Queram, "Lyft and Uber Establish Legal Funds to Protect Drivers from Texas Abortion Law," Route Fifty (7 Sept. 2021), https://www.route-fifty.com/management/2021/09/ride-share-abortion-legal-fund-texas/185154/. T. O'Donnell, "Under Texas ban, private citizens could sue a cab driver who takes a woman to an abortion," (1 Sept. 2021), https://theweek.com/science/health/1004413/under-texas-ban-private-citizens-could-sue-a-cab-driver-who-takes-a-woman-to; R. Alta Charo, Vigilante Injustice - Deputizing and Weaponizing the Public to Stop Abortions, The New England Journal of Medicine (14 Oct. 2021), https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2114886.

[89] A. Zablocki & M. Sutrina, "The Impact of State Laws Criminalizing Abortion," Lexis Nexis (27 Sept. 2022), https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/practical-guidance-journal/b/pa/posts/the-impact-of-state-laws-criminalizing-abortion; Madiba Denney & Jackie Fielding, "Miscarriage of Justice: The Danger of Laws Criminalizing Pregnancy Outcomes" The Brennan Center (9 Nov. 2021), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/miscarriage-justice-danger-laws-criminalizing-pregnancy-outcomes.

[90] Texas Heartbeat Act, Senate Bill 8 (SB 8) (20 Mar. 2021) (An Act relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an "unborn child's heartbeat"; authorizing a private civil right of action), https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/SB00008F.pdf. See also Okla. Stat. tit. 63, §1-745.33-.34, .38 (2022); Idaho Code §§ 18-8804, 18-8807

[91] Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 170A.001-7 (2022). See id., § I (B)(1).

[92] J. Gerson, "'No one wants to get sued': Some abortion providers have stopped working in Texas" The 19th (15 Sept. 2021), https://19thnews.org/2021/09/abortion-providers-texas-stopped-working-under-threat-sued/ ("'Even if abortion providers win in every single case brought against them [under SB 8], that burden of having to have a lawyer to defend yourself, traveling all over the state to do so - that alone threatens to shut down abortion providers,' said Marc Hearron, senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights"). In December 2022, a Texas court dismissed a suit from an unaffected, out of state plaintiff against a doctor who had performed an abortion in defiance of the law. The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the case, but left the door open for plaintiffs with ties to a case to sue providers. See D. Solomon, "Texas's Abortion 'Bounty' Law Just Lost Its First Test. Here's What That Means," Texas Monthly (9 Dec. 2022), https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-abortion-bounty-law-just-lost-first-test/.

[93] Interview by Foley Hoag LLP with Dr. Elissa Serapio (25 July 2022). Others involved in abortion care, including lawyers, have the same concerns. I. Mitchell, "Texas Freedom Caucus Warns Law Firm of Criminal Liability for Covering Employees' Abortion Costs," The Texan (11 July 2022), available at https://thetexan.news/texas-freedom-caucus-warns-law-firm-of-criminal-liability-for-covering-employees-abortion-costs/ (members of the Texas Freedom Caucus promise to file legislation in the upcoming session to "require the State Bar of Texas to disbar any lawyer that has violated Texas abortion laws."). See also E. Bowman, "As states ban abortion, the Texas bounty law offers a way to survive legal challenges," NPR (11 July 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/07/11/1107741175/texas-abortion-bounty-law. See also M. Kornfield, "A website for 'whistleblowers' to expose Texas abortion providers was taken down-again" (6 Sept. 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/06/texas-abortion-ban-website/.

[94] R. Cohen, "The coming legal battles of post-Roe America," Vox (27 June 2022), https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23183835/roe-wade-abortion-pregnant-criminalize.

[95] C. Kitchener & D. Barrett, "Antiabortion Lawmakers Want to Block Patients from Crossing State Lines," Washington Post (30 June 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/abortion-state-lines/. See also A. Ollstein & M. Messerly, "Missouri wants to stop out-of-state abortions. Other states could follow," https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/19/travel-abortion-law-missouri-00018539 for specific of the Missouri proposal.

[96] M.O. SB603, 101st Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (2021).

[97] See R. Cohen, "The coming legal battles of post-Roe America," Vox (27 June 2022), https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23183835/roe-wade-abortion-pregnant-criminalize. See also S. Ballentine & J. Hanna, "Missouri considers law to make illegal to 'aid or abet' out-of-state abortion," PBS (16 Mar. 2022), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/missouri-considers-law-to-make-illegal-to-aid-or-abet-out-of-state.

[98] T. Gross, "The U.S. faces 'unprecedented uncertainty' regarding abortion law, legal scholar says," NPR (updated 18 Jan. 2023), https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/01/17/1149509246/the-u-s-faces-unprecedented-uncertainty-regarding-abortion-law-legal-scholar-sa; T. Benson, "Interstate Travel Post-Roe Isn't as Secure as You May Think," Wired (25 July 2022), https://www.wired.com/story/insterstate-travel-abortion-post-roe/.

[99] Pregnancy-related prosecutions not only existed but were increasing before Dobbs. See Pregnancy Justice, "Arrests and Prosecutions of Pregnant Women, 1973-2020" (18 Sept. 2021), https://www.nationaladvocatesforpregnantwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/FINAL_1600cases-Factsheet.docx.pdf. See also M. Goldberg, "When a Miscarriage Is Manslaughter," The New York Times (18 Oct. 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/18/opinion/poolaw-miscarriage.html.

[100] See A. Yurkanin, "Women can be prosecuted for taking abortion pills, says Alabama attorney general," AL.com (10 Jan. 2023).

[102] Pregnancy Justice, "When Fetuses Gain Personhood: Understanding the Impact on IVF, Contraception, Medical Treatment, Criminal Law, Child Support, and Beyond" (17 Aug. 2022), https://pregjustdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Fetal-Personhood-Issue-8.17.22.pdf. See also Pregnancy Justice, "Who Do Fetal Homicide Laws Protect? An Analysis for a Post-Roe America," https://www.nationaladvocatesforpregnantwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Feticide-Brief-w-Appendix.pdf.

[103] International human rights law (IHRL) makes clear that its protections start at birth and that fetal personhood has no basis in IHRL. See Working Group on discrimination against women and girls in law and practice, Women's Autonomy, Equality and Reproductive Health in International Human Rights: Between Recognition, Backlash and Regressive Trends (Oct. 2017), https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Women/WG/WomensAutonomyEqualityReproductiveHealth.pdf ("It was well settled in the 1948 [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] and upheld in the ICCPR that the human rights accorded under IHRL are accorded to those who have been born. 'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.'"). The Working Group cites inter alia the travaux préparatoires of Article 6 of the ICCPR, in which proposed amendments suggesting that the right to life applied before birth were specifically rejected by states. UN GAOR, 12th Session, Agenda Item 33, at 119 (e), (q), UN Doc. A/3764, 1957.

[104] M. Carlisle, "Fetal Personhood Laws Are a New Frontier in the Battle Over Reproductive Rights," Time (28 June 2022), https://time.com/6191886/fetal-personhood-laws-roe-abortion/. Fetal personhood provisions could also lead to non-abortion-related conduct being criminalized. https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2022-05-06/the-push-to-make-fetuses-people-and-abortion-murder/.

[105] O. Gonzalez, "Louisiana abortion bill allowing homicide charges against patients stopped for now," Axios (13 May 2022), https://www.axios.com/2022/05/13/louisiana-abortion-bill-homicide-patient-roe.

[106] A Tennessee trigger law that will go into effect in August will make performing an abortion a felony that comes with a sentence of up to 15 years imprisonment. A.Sainz & K. Kruesi, "Memphis council resolution addresses abortion prosecutions," The Associated Press (12 July 2022), https://apnews.com/article/abortion-2022-midterm-elections-us-supreme-court-health-nashville-92c4834b3b0fd10e487c2bc75020c03d. A 2021 study from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Pregnancy Justice determined that there are thousands of federal and state crimes already on the books that prosecutors can and have used to charge pregnant persons in a post-Roe world. See National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and National Foundation for Criminal Justice, "Abortion in America: How Legislative Overreach Is Turning Reproductive Rights Into Criminal Wrongs" (Aug. 2021), https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/ce0899a0-3588-42d0-b351-23b9790f3bb8/abortion-in-america-how-legislative-overreach-is-turning-reproductive-rights-into-criminal-wrongs.pdf.

[107] "Alabama Mother Prosecuted for Taking Prescription During Pregnancy," Equal Justice Initiative (12 July 2021), https://eji.org/news/alabama-mother-prosecuted-for-taking-prescription-during-pregnancy/.

[108] L. Paltrow & L. Sangoi, "The dangerous state laws that are punishing pregnant people," Think Progress (28 Sept. 2016), https://archive.thinkprogress.org/criminalization-pregnancy-us-43e4741bb514/; Amnesty International, "USA: Criminalizing pregnancy: policing pregnant women who use drugs in the USA" (23 May 2017) https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/amr51/6203/2017/en/.

[109] "Alabama Mother Prosecuted for Taking Prescription During Pregnancy," Equal Justice Initiative (12 July 2021), https://eji.org/news/alabama-mother-prosecuted-for-taking-prescription-during-pregnancy/; P. Salhotra, "Does a fetus count in the carpool lane? Texas' abortion law creates new questions about legal personhood," The Texas Tribune (13 Sept. 2022), https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/13/texas-personhood-laws-abortion-law/; M. Carrizosa, "Beyond Abortion: The Fight Over Fetal Personhood Is Here (Video)," Bloomberg Law (12 Jan. 2023), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/beyond-abortion-the-fight-over-fetal-personhood-is-here-video.

[110] See N. Martin, "Take a Valium, Lose Your Kid, Go to Jail," ProPublica (23 Sept. 2015), https://www.propublica.org/article/when-the-womb-is-a-crime-scene.

[111] See Pregnancy Justice, "Confronting Pregnancy Criminalization: A Practical Guide for Healthcare Providers, Lawyers, Medical Examiners, Child Welfare Workers, and Policymakers," p. 6 (July 2022), https://www.pregnancyjusticeus.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/1.Confronting-PregnancyCriminalization_6.22.23-1.pdf; Pregnancy Justice, "Arrests and Other Deprivations of Liberty of Pregnant Women, 1973-2020," https://www.pregnancyjusticeus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/FINAL_1600cases-Factsheet.docx.pdf.

[112] See Pregnancy Justice, "Wisconsin's 'Unborn Children Protection Act' (Act 292)" (16 May 2022), https://www.nationaladvocatesforpregnantwomen.org/fact-sheet-wisconsins-unborn-child-protection-act-act.

[113] See Idaho 18-622(5) "Nothing in this section shall be construed to subject a pregnant woman on whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty."; S. Harris, "Local woman facing 10 years in prison for allegedly using meth the day she gave birth" (6 June 2021), https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/local-woman-facing-10-years-in-prison-for-allegedly-using-meth-the-day-she-gave/article_e03d4800-cf40-5263-a7d3-085d2d7df2b4.html/; L. Miranda et al., "How States Handle Drug Use During Pregnancy" (30 Sept. 2015), https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/maternity-drug-policies-by-state.

[114] Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on its visit to the United States of America, ¶ 74 (U.N. Doc. A/HRC/36/37/Add.2) (17 July 2017).

[115] See NWHN Staff, "Consumer Health Info: Medication Abortion and Miscarriage" (updated 15 Aug. 2019), https://nwhn.org/abortion-pills-vs-miscarriage-demystifying-experience/ ("From a medical perspective, there is no physically significant difference between a medication abortion and a spontaneously occurring miscarriage. For example, the medicines used in medication abortion are used to help safely manage an incomplete miscarriage.").

[116] See M. Dennie & J. Fielding, "Miscarriage of Justice: The Danger of Laws Criminalizing Pregnancy Outcomes," Brennan Center for Justice (9 Nov. 2021), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/miscarriage-justice-danger-laws-criminalizing-pregnancy-outcomes. P. Thompson & A. Turcios Cruz, "How an Oklahoma women's miscarriage put a spotlight on racial disparities in prosecutions," NBC News (5 Nov. 2021).

[117] "Criminal Justice Fact Sheet," NAACP, https://naacp.org/resources/criminal-justice-fact-sheet; https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2021/10/08/indigenouspeoplesday/ ("In jails, Native people had more than double the incarceration rate of white people, and in prisons this disparity was even greater.").

[118] L. Paltrow & J. Flavin, Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States, 1973-2005: Implications for Women's Legal Status and Public Health, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law https://read.dukeupress.edu/jhppl/article/38/2/299/13533/Arrests-of-and-Forced-Interventions-on-Pregnant (noting that the socioeconomic status of economically disadvantaged was indicated by the fact that 71 percent qualified for indigent defense).

[119] See National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Race and the War on Drugs (29 Nov. 2022), https://www.nacdl.org/Content/Race-and-the-War-on-Drugs.

[120] Report by the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health: Racism and the right to health (U.N. Doc. A/77/197) (20 July 2022).

[121] See American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Opposition to Criminalization of Individuals During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period-Statement of Policy (Dec. 2020), https://www.acog.org/clinical-information/policy-and-position-statements/statements-of-policy/2020/opposition-criminalization-of-individuals-pregnancy-and-postpartum-period.

[122] A recent study by If/When/How found "at least 61 instances where people were investigated or prosecuted for allegedly self-managing an abortion or helping others self-manage. Among the cases involving adults, 26% were reported by acquaintances (including family, friends, and neighbors) and 45% were reported by care professionals (including doctors, nurses, and social workers) after seeking care...Whether criminalization has occurred out of malice or simply due to ignorance of reporting requirements, clinicians, social workers, and other clinical support providers have caused substantial harm to patients by calling law enforcement after the loss of pregnancy because they suspect the miscarriage was intentionally induced." J. Perritt, "Don't Report Your Abortion Patients to Law Enforcement-Self-managed abortion does not legally need to be reported," Medpage Today (5 Nov. 2022), https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/101581; (citing L. Huss et al., Self-Care, Criminalized: August 2022 Preliminary Findings, If How When: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice 2-3 (2022)). See also E. Bazelon, "Purvi Patel Could Be Just the Beginning," The New York Times (1 Apr. 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/magazine/purvi-patel-could-be-just-the-beginning.html.

[123] S. Artiga et al., "Racial Disparities in Maternal and Infant Health: An Overview," Kaiser Family Foundation (10 Nov. 2020), https://www.kff.org/report-section/racial-disparities-in-maternal-and-infant-health-an-overview-issue-brief/.

[124] E. Yuko, "Women of Color Will Face More Criminalized Pregnancies in Post-'Roe' America," Rolling Stone (7 July 2022), https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/roe-wade-abortion-criminalized-pregnancy-bipoc-1377430/.

[125] Working Group on discrimination against women and girls in law and practice, Women's Autonomy, Equality and Reproductive Health in International Human Rights: Between Recognition, Backlash and Regressive Trends (Oct. 2017), https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Women/WG/WomensAutonomyEqualityReproductiveHealth.pdf.

[126] See, e.g., C. Zakrzewski et al., "Texts, web searches about abortion have been used to prosecute women," The Washington Post (3 July 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/03/abortion-data-privacy-prosecution/. See also R. Williams, "How might law enforcement use digital tracking to enforce Georgia's strict anti-abortion law?" GPB (30 Aug. 2022), https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/08/30/how-might-law-enforcement-use-digital-tracking-enforce-georgias-strict-anti.

[127] See K. Cheung, "Abortion in the Surveillance State," Jezebel (22 Nov. 2021), https://jezebel.com/abortion-in-the-surveillance-state-1848076906. See also J. Schuppe, "Police sweep Google searches to find suspects. The tactic is facing its first legal challenge," NBC News (30 June 2022), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-google-reverse-keyword-searches-rcna35749.

[128] P. Hurtado et al., "In a Post-Roe World, More Miscarriage and Stillbirth Prosecutions Await Women," Bloomberg (5 July 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-05/miscarriage-stillbirth-prosecutions-await-women-post-roe. See also L. Rankin, "How an online search for abortion pills landed this woman in jail," Fast Company (26 Feb. 2020), https://www.fastcompany.com/90468030/how-an-online-search-for-abortion-pills-landed-this-woman-in-jail.

[129] Federal Trade Commission, "Data Brokers: A Call for Transparency and Accountability," p. i (May 2014), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/data-brokers-call-transparency-accountability-report-federal-trade-commission-may-2014/140527databrokerreport.pdf.

[130] Federal courts have not ruled directly on whether the particularized probable cause standard applicable to warrant requests is required for police to conduct keyword search queries or "geofenced" (i.e. location-bound) searches of data held by third parties, including Google. At the moment, law enforcement is relying on vague and less-protective statutory standards, such as the Stored Communication Act's "reasonable grounds [to believe that records are] relevant and material to an ongoing investigation" standard. Congressional Research Service, "Abortion, Data Privacy, and Law Enforcement Access: A Legal Overview" (updated 8 July 2022), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10786.

[131] J. Cox, "Data Broker Is Selling Location Data of People Who Visit Abortion Clinics," Vice (3 May 2022), https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vzjb/location-data-abortion-clinics-safegraph-planned-parenthood (reporting on the sale of data "showing where groups of people visiting [clinics the provide abortions] came from, how long they stayed there, and where they then went afterwards."). See also B. Cyphers, "Inside Fog Data Science, the Secretive Company Selling Mass Surveillance to Local Police," EFF (31 Aug. 2022), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/inside-fog-data-science-secretive-company-selling-mass-surveillance-local-police (describing how private data brokers sell searchable access to "'billions' of data points about 'over 250 million' devices" to local law enforcement agencies, generally without any court oversight).

[132] B. Cyphers, "How Law Enforcement Around the Country Buys Cell Phone Location Data Wholesale," EFF (31 Aug. 2022), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/how-law-enforcement-around-country-buys-cell-phone-location-data-wholesale Some data broker services are designed and marketed specifically for law enforcement agencies, who purchase subscriptions to the services - rather than seeking a warrant - in order to access advanced search features. The Electronic Frontier Foundation documented a lack of agency-level policies governing the use of these services, and found that most agencies did not seek either warrants or subpoenas to access the data. See also F. Patel & A. Shahzad, "With Roe v. Wade at Risk, Digital Surveillance Threatens Reproductive Freedom," Just Security (17 May 2022), https://www.justsecurity.org/81547/with-roe-v-wade-at-risk-digital-surveillance-threatens-reproductive-freedom/.

[133] S. Quenby et al., "Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss," The Lancet (Vol. 397, 2021), p. 1658; D. Walker, "With Roe overturned, Indigenous communities say it was always impossible for them to access abortion services," Insider (24 June 2002), https://www.insider.com/roe-overturned-harder-for-indigenous-communities-to-access-abortion-2022-5.

[134] National Women's Health Center, "Consumer Health Info: Medication Abortion and Miscarriage" (updated 15 Aug. 2019), https://nwhn.org/abortion-pills-vs-miscarriage-demystifying-experience/ ("From a medical perspective, there is no physically significant difference between a medication abortion and a spontaneously occurring miscarriage. For example, the medicines used in medication abortion are used to help safely manage an incomplete miscarriage.").

[135] C. Conti-Cook, Surveilling the Digital Abortion Diary, 50 (1) University of Baltimore Law Review 1 (2020), pp. 29-38.

[136] See M. Gilman, The Class Differential in Privacy Law, 77 Brook. L. Rev. 1389, 1392 (2012), https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol77/iss4/2.

[137] See E. Joh, Dobbs Online: Digital Rights as Abortion Rights (5 Sept. 2022) (feminist cyberlaw, A. Levendowski & M. Jones (eds.), forthcoming 2023), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4210754) (noting that low-income women are less able to afford more privacy-protective phones, apps, or other services).

[138] See K. Cheung, "Abortion in the Surveillance State," Jezebel (22 Nov. 2021), https://jezebel.com/abortion-in-the-surveillance-state-1848076906; S. Coutts, "Anti-Choice Groups Use Smartphone Surveillance to Target 'Abortion-Minded Women' During Clinic Visits," Rewire News Group (25 May 2016), https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2016/05/25/anti-choice-groups-deploy-smartphone-surveillance-target-abortion-minded-women-clinic-visits/.

[139] A. Abrams & V. Bergengruen, "Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers Are Collecting Troves of Data That Could Be Weaponized Against Women," Time (22 June 2022), https://time.com/6189528/anti-abortion-pregnancy-centers-collect-data-investigation/.

[140] J. Cox, "Data Broker Is Selling Location Data of People Who Visit Abortion Clinics," Vice (3 May 2022), https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vzjb/location-data-abortion-clinics-safegraph-planned-parenthood; E. Joh, Dobbs Online: Digital Rights as Abortion Rights (5 Sept. 2022) (A. Levendowski & M. Jones (eds.), feminist cyberlaw, forthcoming 2023), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4210754). See also A. Vesoulis, "How a Digital Abortion Footprint Could Lead to Criminal Charges-And What Congress Can Do About It," Time (10 May 2022), available at https://time.com/6175194/digital-data-abortion-congress/; E. Bowman, "As states ban abortion, the Texas bounty law offers a way to survive legal challenges," NPR (11 July 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/07/11/1107741175/texas-abortion-bounty law#:~:text=The%20law%20makes%20no%20exceptions,%2410%2C000%20in%20damages%20from%20defendants.

[142] N. Poli & V. Bergengruen, "Lawmakers Scramble to Reform Digital Privacy After Roe Reversal," Time (1 July 2022), https://time.com/6193224/abortion-privacy-data-reform/.

[143] Complaint, Generation to Generation Inc. v. State of Florida, No. 2022-CA-000980 (Leon Cty. Fla., Circ. Ct., 10 June 2022). See also E. Fawcett, "Synagogue Sues Florida, Saying Abortion Restrictions Violate Religious Freedoms," The New York Times (16 June 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/us/florida-abortion-law-judaism.html.

[144] The providers in Florida who have resorted to the courts to assert their right to freedom of religion or belief are part of a long tradition of healthcare workers providing reproductive healthcare, at least in part, due to their faith. See A Religious Right to Abortion: Legal History and Analysis, Columbia Law School (Aug. 2022), https://lawrightsreligion.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/LRRP%20Religious%20Liberty%20%26%20Abortion%20Rights%20memo.pdf.

[145] M. Boorstein, "Clergy sue to halt Florida abortion law, citing religious freedom," The Washington Post (1 Sept. 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2022/09/01/florida-pastor-rabbi-abortion-lawsuit/.

[147] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (16 Dec. 1966), United Nations, Treaty Series (Vol. 999) (" ICCPR "), https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3aa0.html [accessed 28 January 2023], Art.18 (3).

[148] See A. Branigin & S. Chery, "Women of color will be most impacted by the end of Roe, experts say," The Washington Post (24 June 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/24/women-of-color-end-of-roe/. See also L. Powell, "Human Rights Campaign Fact Sheet: Lesbian, Bisexual, Queer Women Who Have Been Pregnant Are More Likely to Need Abortion Services; Demonstrates Impact Roe Reversal Would Have on LGBTQ+ People," Human Rights Campaign (2 June 2022), available at https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/human-rights-campaign-fact-sheet-lesbian-bisexual-queer-women-who-have-been-pregnant-are-more-likely-to-need-abortion-services-demonstrates-impact-roe-reversal-would-have-on-lgbtq-people. See also American Association of People with Disabilities, "AAPD Statement on Leaked Supreme Court Draft Decision and Threat to Roe v. Wade" (10 May 2022), https://www.aapd.com/press-releases/aapd-statement-scotus-threat-to-roe/.

[149] See, e.g., E.E. Petersen et al., "Vital Signs: Pregnancy-Related Deaths, United States, 2011-2015, and Strategies for Prevention, 13 States, 2013-2017," MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep (2019), 68:423-429 (between 2011 and 2015 Indigenous women had the second highest rate of pregnancy-related deaths); M. Long et al., "Women's Health Care Utilization and Costs: Findings from the 2020 KFF Women's Health Survey" (21 Apr. 2021), https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/womens-health-care-utilization-and-costs-findings-from-the-2020-kff-womens-health-survey (low-income women, Black women, and Hispanic women); G. Borchelt, "The Impact Poverty Has on Women's Health," https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-state-of-healthcare-in-the-united-states/poverty-on-womens-health (low-income women); M. Buckles "Improving Health Outcomes for Black Women and Girls With Disabilities" (15 Feb. 2022), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/improving-health-outcomes-for-black-women-and-girls-with-disabilities (Black women and women with disabilities); L. Johnson, "The Disparate Impact of Texas' Abortion Ban on Low-Income and Rural Women," Georgetown Law Journal on Poverty Law and Policy (24 Feb. 2022), https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-journal/blog/the-disparate-impact-of-texas-abortion-ban-on-low-income-and-rural-women (rural and low-income women).

[150] See K.L. Gilbert et al., "Dobbs, another frontline for health equity," Brookings Institution (30 June 2022), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2022/06/30/Dobbs-another-frontline-for-health-equity/. See also D. Walker, "With Roe overturned, Indigenous communities say it was always impossible for them to access abortion services" (24 June 2022), https://www.insider.com/roe-overturned-harder-for-indigenous-communities-to-access-abortion-2022-5; L. Kcomt et al., "Healthcare avoidance due to anticipated discrimination among transgender people: A call to create trans-affirmative environments" (28 May 2020), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7276492/pdf/main.pdf; B. Karami Matin et al., "Barriers in access to healthcare for women with disabilities: a systematic review in qualitative studies" (30 Jan. 2021), https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12905-021-01189-5.pdf; U. Ranji et al., "Beyond the Numbers: Access to Reproductive Health Care for Low-Income Women in Five Communities" (14 Nov. 2019), https://www.kff.org/report-section/beyond-the-numbers-access-to-reproductive-health-care-for-low-income-women-in-five-communities-executive-summary.; L. Fuentes, "Inequity in US Abortion Rights and Access: The End of Roe is Deepening Existing Divides," Guttmacher Institute (Jan. 2023), https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/01/inequity-us-abortion-rights-and-access-end-roe-deepening-existing-divides ("Drivers of inequity such as income and health insurance disparities and health provider bias...are not simply the result of individual acts of discrimination but rather the result of how institutions and public infrastructures function.").

[151] Brief for Autistic Self Advocacy Network and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund as Amicus Curiae (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228) (20 Sept. 2021), p. 7, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/192964/20210920135335415_19-1392%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20The%20Autistic%20Self%20Advocacy%20Network%20et%20al..pdf ("around 60,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized in state-sanctioned programs to prevent those adjudged to have psychiatric disabilities from reproducing"). See also P. Lombardo, Three Generations, No Imbeciles: New Light on Buck v. Bell, 60 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 30, 31 (1985); A. Stern, "Forced sterilization policies in the US targeted minorities and those with disabilities - and lasted into the 21st century," IHPI News (23 Sept. 2020), https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/forced-sterilization-policies-us-targeted-minorities-and-those-disabilities-and-lasted-21st ("Anyone who did not fit [the] mold of racial perfection, which included most immigrants, Blacks, Indigenous people, poor whites and people with disabilities, became targets of eugenics programs."); National Women's Law Center, Forced Sterilization of Disabled People in the United States (24 Jan. 2022), https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/%C6%92.NWLC_SterilizationReport_2021.pdf; (Appendix) https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/%C6%92.NWLC_SterilizationReport_2022_Appendix.pdf.

[152] Brief for Autistic Self Advocacy Network and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund as Amicus Curiae (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228) (20 Sept. 2021), p. 7, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/192964/20210920135335415_19-1392%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20The%20Autistic%20Self%20Advocacy%20Network%20et%20al..pdf.

[153] L. Bowen, "Dobbs Is a Disaster for Disability Justice," Society for Cultural Anthropology (3 Oct. 2022), https://culanth.org/fieldsights/Dobbs-is-a-disaster-for-disability-justice. See also R. Hoban, "In debate over Down syndrome/abortion bill, disability groups struggle with how to respond," North Carolina Health News (8 June 2021), https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2021/06/08/disability-groups-struggle-to-respond-to-latest-abortion-bill/.

[154] M. Smith, "Native Americans: A Crisis in Health Equity," American Bar Association Human Rights Magazine (Vol. 43, No. 3) (1 Aug. 2018), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-state-of-healthcare-in-the-united-states/native-american-crisis-in-health-equity/. The United Nations' Department for Economic and Social Affairs has also produced reports on indigenous peoples' access to health services around the world, finding these groups face heightened challenges. See "State of the World's Indigenous Peoples: Indigenous Peoples' Access to Health Services," United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (March 2018), https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/03/The-State-of-The-Worlds-Indigenous-Peoples-WEB.pdf.

[155] E. Hofstaedter, "Abortion Was Already Inaccessible on Reservation Land. Dobbs Made Things Worse," Mother Jones (12 Aug. 2022), https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/08/abortion-Dobbs-tribal-land/.

[156] See D. Williams et al., Understanding and Addressing Racial Disparities in Health Care, 21(4) Health Care Financing Review 75 (2000). See also Key Facts on Health and Health Care by Race and Ethnicity, Kaiser Family Foundation, (26 Jan. 2022), https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/report/key-facts-on-health-and-health-care-by-race-and-ethnicity/; "Closing the Equity Gap in Health Care for Black Americans," The Commonwealth Fund (15 July 2016), https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2016/closing-equity-gap-health-care-black-americans. Black women may also be particularly impacted by abortion bans because they have historically been overrepresented among people seeking abortions. See "Reported Legal Abortions by Race of Women Who Obtained Abortion by the State of Occurrence," Kaiser Family Foundation (2020), https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/report/key-facts-on-health-and-health-care-by-race-and-ethnicity/

[157] See, e.g., A. Spencer, "Black Rural Residents Lack Healthcare Due to Racism and Poverty," The Sacramento Observer (22 Aug. 2022), https://sacobserver.com/2022/08/black-rural-residents-lack-healthcare-due-to-racism-and-poverty/.

[158] See "Submission to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination," Amnesty International, The Global Justice Center, The Southern Rural Black Women's Initiative for Economic and Social Justice, and Human Rights Watch (Aug. 2022), https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2022/07/SBRWI_HRW_GJC_AI_CERDShadowReport.pdf. See A Post-Roe America: The Legal Consequences of the Dobbs Decision: Hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 117th Cong. section IV (2022) (statement of Khiara M. Bridges Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law), https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony%20-%20Bridges%20-%202022-07-121.pdf.

[159] See generally A. Bissonnette, "Caged Women": Migration, Mobility and Access to Health Services in Texas and Arizona, 37 J. Borderlands Studies 1 (9 Apr. 2020), tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08865655.2020.1748515?journalCode=rjbs20.

[160] Barriers to sexual and reproductive health services faced by immigrant women of reproductive age in the United States, Ibis Reproductive Health (Jan. 2023), https://www.ibisreproductivehealth.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/Access%20to%20SRH%20services_immigrants%20brief%20FINAL.pdf. Many noncitizen US residents are ineligible for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for their first five years in the country. Health coverage for lawfully present immigrants: Immigrants and Medicaid & CHIP, HealthCare.Gov (17 Jan. 2023), https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/lawfully-present-immigrants/.

[162] Interview by Foley Hoag LLP with Dr. Elissa Serapio (25 July 2022).

[163] Human Rights Watch, "The Only People It Really Affects Are the People It Hurts" (11 Mar. 2021), https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/03/11/only-people-it-really-affects-are-people-it-hurts/human-rights-consequences.

[164] "Barriers to sexual and reproductive health services faced by immigrant women of reproductive age in the United States," Ibis Reproductive Health (Jan. 2023), https://www.ibisreproductivehealth.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/Access%20to%20SRH%20services_immigrants%20brief%20FINAL.pdf.

[165] See K.L. Gilbert et al., "Dobbs, another frontline for health equity," Brookings Institution (30 June 2022), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2022/06/30/Dobbs-another-frontline-for-health-equity/; M. Kirsteinet al., "100 Days Post-Roe: At Least 66 Clinics Across 15 US States Have Stopped Offering Abortion Care," Guttmacher Institute (6 Oct. 2022), https://www.guttmacher.org/2022/10/100-days-post-roe-least-66-clinics-across-15-us-states-have-stopped-offering-abortion-care (Noting that abortion bans lead to clinic closures and "[w]hen clinics close down or stop offering abortion care, it represents a lost source of health care for their community.").

[166] See K. L. Gilbert et al., "Dobbs, another frontline for health equity," Brookings Institution (30 June 2022), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2022/06/30/Dobbs-another-frontline-for-health-equity/ ("Of the 13 states that have an immediate trigger law, 9 of them rank number 30 or lower in overall state health using data from America's Health Rankings. More than 10 of these states rank in the bottom half for public health and healthcare quality.").

[167] See National Institute of Justice, "Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and Men: 2010 Findings From the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey," (May 2016), pp. 2, 14, available at https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249736.pdf (Indigenous women); S.E. Tan & K. Kuschminder, "Migrant experiences of sexual and gender based violence: a critical interpretative synthesis," Global Health (2022), pp. 18, 68 (migrant women); "Violence Against Women in the United States: Statistics," available at https://now.org/resource/violence-against-women-in-the-united-states-statistic (low-income women); J. Barlow "Black women, the forgotten survivors of sexual assault," https://www.apa.org/pi/about/newsletter/2020/02/black-women-sexual-assault (Black women); R. Dowd "Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime," UCLA School of Law Williams Institute (23 Mar. 2021), https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release (transgender men); "Violence and Abuse in Rural America" (last reviewed 26 Mar. 2021), https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/violence-and-abuse (women in rural communities); CDC, "Sexual Violence and Intimate Partner Violence Among People with Disabilities" (last reviewed 1 June 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/svandipv.html (women with disabilities).

[168] Most states with abortion bans in effect do not have any exception for pregnancies that result from rape or incest. F. Cineas, "Rape and incest abortion exceptions don't really exist," Vox (22 July 2022), https://www.vox.com/23271352/rape-and-incest-abortion-exception. See, e.g., Alabama Human Life Protection Act (H.B. 314, § 7); Wisconsin § 940.04(5); Wyoming § 35-6-102.(b); Texas Health & Safety Code Title 2, Subtit. H, Ch. 170A; Tennessee Code Ann. § 39-15-213.(c)(1)-(3); South Dakota, § 22-17-5.1; Miss. Code Ann. § 41-41-45.(2) (contemplating rape only); Louisiana § 40:1061.F-G; Kentucky § 311.772.(4)(a)-(b); Arkansas A.C.A. § 5-61-304(a); Arizona A.R.S. § 13-3603.02.A; Oklahoma S.B. 612 Section A.B.3.a; Missouri (§ 188.017 R.S.Mo.).

[169] Most states with a rape exception to their abortion ban require the victim to report the rape to the police in order to obtain an abortion. F. Cineas, "Rape and incest abortion exceptions don't really exist," Vox (22 July 2022), https://www.vox.com/23271352/rape-and-incest-abortion-exception.

[170] RAINN, The Criminal Justice System: Statistics, https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system.

[171] D. Thompson, "When Abortion Means Traveling, More Women Forgo Procedure: Study", US News (16 May 2022), https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-05-16/when-abortion-means-traveling-more-women-forgo-procedure-study.

[172] See N. Hassanein, "People of color, the poor and other marginalized people to bear the brunt if Roe v. Wade is overturned," USA Today (3 May 2022), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/05/03/people-color-most-impacted-if-roe-v-wade-overturned/9626866002/. See also A. Schrager, "No Abortion Means Poor States Will Get Poorer," The Washington Post (4 May 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/no-abortion-means-poor-states-will-get-poorer/2022/05/04/276bcde6-cb9a-11ec-b7ee-74f09d827ca6_story.html.

[173] D. Thompson, "When Abortion Means Traveling, More Women Forgo Procedure: Study," US News (16 May 2022), https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-05-16/when-abortion-means-traveling-more-women-forgo-procedure-study.

[174] B. Rader MPH et al., Estimated Travel Time and Spatial Access to Abortion Facilities in the US Before and After the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Decision, JAMA 2022;328(20):2041-2047, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2798215.

[175] See J. Bearak et al., "Disparities and change over time in distance women would need to travel to have an abortion in the USA: a spatial analysis," Lancet Public Health (Nov. 2017), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5943037/. See also R. Bleiweis et al., "The Basic Facts About Women in Poverty" (3 Aug. 2020), CAP, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/basic-facts-women-poverty; Status of Women in the States, "Spotlight on Immigrant Women: The Employment and Earning of Immigrant Women," https://statusofwomendata.org/immigrant-women; M.V. Badgett et al., " LGBT Poverty in the United States," UCLA School of Law Williams Institute (Oct. 2019), https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-poverty-us; Committee Opinion, "Health Disparities in Rural Women," The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Feb. 2014, reaffirmed in 2021), https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2014/02/health-disparities-in-rural-women (rural women).

[176] D. Foster, The Turnaway Study: The Cost of Denying Women Access to Abortion (2020).

[177] D. Foster, New abortion bans will increase existing health and economic disparities, 112 Am. J. Pub. Health 1276 (June 2022), https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306993.

[179] See United Nations, The State Parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-2&chapter=4&clang=_en (US ratification, 21 Oct. 1994).

[180] See United Nations, The State Parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/cat.pdf (US ratification, 21 Oct. 1994).

[181] See United Nations, The State Parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4 (US ratification, 5 Oct. 1977).

[182] See United Nations, The State Parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-8&chapter=4&clang=_en (US ratification, 17 July 1980).

[183] See United Nations, The State Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&clang=_en (US ratification, 16 Feb. 1995).

[184] See United Nations, The State Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=IV-15&src=IND (US ratification, 30 July 2009).

[185] See United Nations, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (23 May 1969), United Nations, Treaty Series (Vol. 1155) (VCLT), Art. 18.

[186] See Brief of the United Nations Mandate Holders as Amici Curiae, Dobbs v. JWHO., 142 S. Ct. 2228, p. 9 (20 Sept. 2021), https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/193045/20210920163400578_19-1392%20bsac%20United%20Nations%20Mandate%20Holders.pdf.

[187] As recently summarized by the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls: "sexual and reproductive health rights are clearly established under international law. They are an integral part of a number of civil and political rights that underpin the physical and mental integrity of individuals and their autonomy, such as the rights to life, liberty and security of person, freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, privacy and respect for family life, as well as economic, social and cultural rights, such as the rights to health, education and work and the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress, and the cross-cutting rights of non-discrimination and equality." Working Group on discrimination against women and girls, Women's and girls' sexual and reproductive health rights in crisis (U.N. Doc. A/HRC/47/38) (28 Apr. 2021), ¶ 18.

[189] See ICERD, Art. 5(e)(iv). See also ICESCR Art. 12; CEDAW Arts. 11(1)(f), 12, 14(2)(b); CRPD Art. 25; CRC Art. 24. See also CESCR, General Comment No. 22 (2016) on the right to sexual and reproductive health (U.N. Doc. E/C.12/GC/22) (2 May 2016), ¶¶ 10-11, 13-14, 45, 49; CRC Committee, General comment No. 15 (2013) on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health (U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/15) (17 Apr. 2013), ¶ 56; Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Violence and its impact on the right to health (U.N. Doc. A/HRC/50/28) (14 Apr. 2022), ¶ 20 (describing how "States violate the right to health when they fail to take effective steps to prevent third parties from undermining the enjoyment of the right to sexual and reproductive health").

[190] HRC, General Comment No. 36, Art. 6 (Right to Life) (U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36) (3 Sept. 2019), ¶ 8.

[192] See CESCR, General Comment 22 (2016) on the right to sexual and reproductive health (U.N. Doc. E/C.12/GC/22) (2 May 2016), ¶ 5 ("The freedoms [protected under the right to health] include the right to make free and responsible decisions and choices, free of violence, coercion and discrimination, regarding matters concerning one's body and sexual and reproductive health[, and entitle all people to] full enjoyment of the right to sexual and reproductive health[.]"); CESCR, General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12) (U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4) (11 Aug. 2000), ¶ 8 ("The freedoms [protected under the right to health] include the right to control one's health and body, including sexual and reproductive freedom, and the right to be free from interference[.]"); CRPD Committee and CEDAW Committee, Guaranteeing sexual and reproductive health and rights for all women, in particular women with disabilities (29 Aug. 2018), https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/crpd/statements-declarations-and-observations ("Access to safe and legal abortion, as well as related services and information are essential aspects of women's reproductive health and a prerequisite for safeguarding their human rights to life, health, equality before the law and equal protection of the law, non-discrimination, information, privacy, bodily integrity and freedom from torture and ill treatment."); CEDAW Committee, L.C. v. Peru (U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/50/D/222009) (2011), ¶ 8.15, https://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/docs/cedaw-c-50-d-22-2009_en.pdf ("[T]he Committee considers that, owing to her condition as a pregnant woman, L.C. did not have access to an effective and accessible procedure allowing her to establish her entitlement to the medical services that her physical and mental condition required."); CERD Committee, Concluding observations on the combined tenth to twelfth reports of the United States of America (U.N. Doc. CERD/C/USA/CO/10-12) (21 Sept. 2022), ¶¶ 35-36.

[193] See ICCPR, Art. 17; CRC, Art. 16.

[194] The Human Rights Committee has found violations of the right to privacy in every case it has considered when the State interfered with reproductive decision-making or abortion access. See HRC, Whelan v. Ireland, CCPR/C/119/D/2425/2014 (" Whelan v. Ireland"), ¶ 7.8; HRC, Mellet v. Ireland, CCPR/C/116/D/2334/2013 (" Mellet v. Ireland"), ¶ 7.7-7.8; HRC, K.L. v. Peru, CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003 (" K.L. v. Peru"), ¶ 6.4; HRC, V.D.A. (on behalf of L.M.R.) v. Argentina, CCPR/C/101/D/1608/2007 (" V.D.A. v. Argentina "), ¶ 9.3; HRC, General Comment 28 (2000) on the equality of rights between men and women (U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10) (29 Mar. 2000), ¶ 20 ("States parties must provide information to enable the Committee to assess the effect of any laws and practices that may interfere with women's right to enjoy privacy" such as "where States impose a legal duty upon doctors and other health personnel to report cases of women who have undergone abortion. . . . States parties should report on any laws and public or private actions that interfere with the equal enjoyment by women of the rights under article 17, and on the measures taken to eliminate such interference and to afford women protection from any such interference.").

[195] See Whelan v. Ireland, ¶ 7.9; Mellet v. Ireland, ¶ 7.8; K.L. v. Peru, ¶ 6.4.

[196] Memorandum from Oklahoma Attorney General to All Oklahoma Law Enforcement Agencies on Guidance for Oklahoma law enforcement following Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. (31 Aug. 2022), https://www.ok.gov/cleet/documents/Memo%20to%20Law%20Enforcement%20Following%20Dobbs%20(8.31.22).pdf.

[198] See, e.g., Whelan v. Ireland, ¶ 7.5-7.7; Mellet v. Ireland, ¶ 7.4-7.6; K.L. v. Peru, ¶ 6.3; V.D.A. v. Argentina, ¶ 9.2; CAT Committee, Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (U.N. Doc. CAT/C/GBR/CO/6) (7 June 2019), ¶¶ 46-47; CAT Committee, Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture - Paraguay (U.N. Doc. CAT/C/PRY/CO/4-6) (14 Dec. 2011), ¶ 22; CAT Committee, Concluding observations on the initial report of Timor-Leste (U.N. Doc. CAT/C/TLS/CO/1) (29 Nov. 2017), ¶ 34.

[199] See CAT, Art. 16; ICCPR, Art. 7; CRC, Arts. 19, 37; CRPD, Art. 15.

[200] See CAT Committee, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland (U.N. Doc. CAT/C/POL/CO/7) (29 Aug. 2019), ¶ 33(d).

[201] See HRC, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (U.N. Doc. A/HRC/31/57) (5 Jan. 2016), ¶ 44 ("The denial of safe abortions and subjecting women and girls to humiliating and judgmental attitudes in such contexts of extreme vulnerability and where timely health care is essential amount to torture or ill treatment.").

[202] CAT Committee, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of the Philippines (U.N. Doc. CAT/C/PHL/CO/3) (2 June 2016), ¶ 40(b) (urging the state to "[r]eview its legislation in order to allow for legal exceptions to the prohibition of abortions in specific circumstances such as when the pregnancy endangers the life or health of the woman, when it is the result of rape or incest and in cases of foetal impairment...") (emphasis added).

[203] See K.L. v. Peru, ¶ 6.3; Mellet v. Ireland, ¶¶ 7.4-7.6; Whelan v. Ireland, ¶¶ 7.4-7.7.

[204] V.D.A. v. Argentina, ¶ 9.2. See also HRC, General comment No. 36, Art. 6: right to life (U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36) (3 Sept. 2019), ¶ 8 ("States parties must provide safe, legal and effective access to abortion where the life and health of the pregnant woman or girl is at risk, or where carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the pregnant woman or girl substantial pain or suffering, most notably where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or where the pregnancy is not viable.") (emphasis added).

[205] CEDAW Committee, General recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19 (U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/35) (26 July 2017), ¶ 18.

[207] HRC, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (U.N. Doc. A/HRC/38/36) (10 Apr. 2018), ¶ 75.

[208] HRC, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of El Salvador (U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/SLV/CO/7) (9 May 2018), ¶ 16.

[209] See supra ¶¶ 22-23 on "fetal personhood" approaches.

[211] HRC, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on its visit to the United States of America (U.N. Doc. A/HRC/36/37/Add.2) (17 July 2017), ¶¶ 73-74 (Detention on discriminatory grounds is defined as arbitrary). See HRC, Rep. of the Working Grp. on Arbitrary Det., Annex (U.N. Doc. A/HRC/16/47) (19 Jan. 2011), p. 23, ¶ 8(e). See also OHCHR, "Working Group on Arbitration Detention: About Arbitrary Detention", available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/about-arbitrary-detention (clarifying that the definition of arbitrary detention under the Working Group's mandate includes "deprivation[s] of liberty [which] constitute[] a violation of the international law for reasons of discrimination based on...gender,...disability; or other status....").

[213] HRC, General Comment No. 22: Article 18 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience or Religion) (U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/22) (20 July 1993), ¶ 4.

[214] HRC, Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt (U.N. Doc. A/HRC/71/269/) (28 Dec. 2016), ¶ 15.

[217] Id.; HRC, Freedom of religion or belief: Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (U.N. Doc. A/HRC/40/58) (5 Mar. 2019), ¶ 17.

[218] See HRC, General Comment No. 34: Art. 19 (Freedoms of opinion and expression) (U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34) (12 Sept. 2011), ¶ 25.

[219] See supra Section I(B).

[220] See supra Section I(B) on the human rights implications of criminal abortion laws in the US.

[221] See supra note 219, ¶ 34 (Outlining that the grounds for restriction "must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve their protective function; they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected...The principle of proportionality has to be respected not only in the law that frames the restrictions but also by the administrative and judicial authorities in applying the law.").

[222] See ICCPR, Arts. 2-3, 26; ICERD, Arts. 2, 5; CEDAW, Art. 12.

[223] See Mellet v. Ireland, ¶¶ 7.11, 3.19; Whelan v. Ireland, ¶ 7.12.

[224] CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 24: Article 12 of the Convention (Women and Health) (U.N. Doc. A/54/38/Rev.1) (1999), ¶ 11 ("It is discriminatory for a State party to refuse to provide legally for the performance of certain reproductive health services for women.").

[225] CEDAW Committee, Inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/OP.8/GBR/1) (6 Mar. 2018), ¶ 74.

[226] Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice, Women's Autonomy, Equality and Reproductive Health in International Human Rights: Between Recognition, Backlash and Regressive Trends (Oct. 2017), p. 2, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Women/WG/WomensAutonomyEqualityReproductiveHealth.pdf.

[228] See ICERD, Arts. 2, 5. See also CERD Committee, Concluding observations on the combined tenth to twelfth reports of the United States of America (U.N. Doc. CERD/C/USA/CO/10-12) (21 Sept. 2022), ¶¶ 35-36.

[229] CERD Committee, Concluding observations on the combined tenth to twelfth reports of the United States of America (U.N. Doc. CERD/C/USA/CO/10-12) (21 Sept. 2022), ¶ 35.

[231] Mellet v. Ireland, ¶ 7.11.

[233] Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice, Women's Autonomy, Equality and Reproductive Health in International Human Rights: Between Recognition, Backlash and Regressive Trends (Oct. 2017), p. 2, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Women/WG/WomensAutonomyEqualityReproductiveHealth.pdf.

[235] CRC Committee, General Comment No. 20 on the implementation of the rights of the child during adolescence (U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/20) (6 Dec. 2016), ¶ 60.

[236] Id., ¶¶ 60-61 (finding that adolescent girls should have access to information about sexual and reproductive health along with access to adequate health services). See also CRC Committee, General Comment No.4: Adolescent health and development in the context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (U.N. Doc. CRC/GC/2003/4) (1 July 2003), ¶ 13.

[237] See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework (HR/PUB/11/04) (2011), ¶ 11 (noting that "The responsibility to respect human rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises wherever they operate. It exists independently of States' abilities and/or willingness to fulfil their own human rights obligations....The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights is distinct from issues of legal liability and enforcement, which remain defined largely by national law provisions in relevant jurisdictions."). See also Human Rights Watch, Federal Trade Commission Comment Re: Commercial Surveillance ANPR, R111004 (21 Nov. 2022).

[238] See supra Section I(C).

[239] See Statement, OHCHR, "Bachelet on US ruling on Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization" (24 June 2022), https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/06/bachelet-us-ruling-Dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization.

[240] See Press Release, Special Procedures, "USA: UN experts denounce Supreme Court decision to strike down Roe v. Wade, urge action to mitigate consequences" (24 June 2022), https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/06/usa-un-experts-denounce-supreme-court-decision-strike-down-roe-v-wade-urge (Statement signed by the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls; the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences; and endorsed by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities; the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights; the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children; the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; and the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy). See also Center for Reproductive Rights, "Protecting Abortion Access in Europe - A Call to Action" (28 June 2022), https://reproductiverights.org/protecting-abortion-access-in-europe-a-call-to-action ("We are deeply concerned about the devastating consequences this regressive judgment will have for the lives, health and wellbeing of people across the United States."); Brief of the United Nations Mandate Holders as Amici Curiae, Dobbs v. JWHO., 142 S. Ct. 2228, pp. 31-33 (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/193045/20210920163400578_19-1392%20bsac%20United%20Nations%20Mandate%20Holders.pdf ("Overturning or curtailing constitutional protections to abortion access established in Roe and Casey constitutes retrogression in violation of human rights law....Dismantling the U.S. framework that has protected abortion access for nearly 50 years will lead to further violations of women's and girls' human rights.").

[241] World Health Organization [WHO], Abortion Care guideline (8 Mar. 2022), https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240039483.

Your tax deductible gift can help stop human rights violations and save lives around the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Human Rights Crisis: Abortion in the United States After Dobbs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Following the United States (US) Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in June 2022, people in the US who can become pregnant are facing an unprecedented human rights crisis. In Dobbs, the Supreme Court overturned the constitutionally protected right to access abortion, leaving the question of whether and how to regulate abortion to individual states.

# data[].attributes.headline
Access to reproductive health care has become more challenging for women in the US, study shows

# data[].attributes.subject
Access to reproductive health care has become more challenging for women in the US, study shows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Access to reproductive health care has become more challenging for women in the US, study shows | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As abortion rights become more restricted in the United States, a new study shows that it's become harder for women to access reproductive health care services more broadly - such as routine screenings and birth control - in recent years.

# data[].attributes.headline
Roe v. Wade and the future of reproductive rights in America

# data[].attributes.subject
Roe v. Wade and the future of reproductive rights in America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Roe v. Wade and the future of reproductive rights in America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court could overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, a move that would effectively end federal protection for abortion rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
There is No Equality Without Reproductive Rights | League of Women Voters

# data[].attributes.subject
There is No Equality Without Reproductive Rights | League of Women Voters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
There is No Equality Without Reproductive Rights | League of Women Voters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For those who experience pregnancy, our basic freedoms hinge on our ability to make choices about our reproductive health. Our physical and psychological health, ability to gain and maintain employment, financial resources, and even what we can and cannot eat are all dependent on our reproductive choices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Gun Control Laws
Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, enslaved people, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the American Revolutionary War. Several colonies' gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

The Second Amendment is not an unlimited or individual right to own guns.

Further, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals to own guns. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, wrote, "the Framer's single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias," hence the inclusion of the phrase "well regulated militia."

Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed.
Read More

Pro 2

More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.

Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members.

Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States.

Researchers found that a "general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed."

Gun licensing laws were associated with a 14% decrease in firearm homicides, while increases in firearm homicides were seen in places with right-to-carry and stand-your ground-laws.

More gun control leads to fewer suicides. When US gun ownership goes down, overall suicide rates drop; meanwhile, each 10 percentage-point increase in gun ownership is linked to a 26.9% increase in the youth suicide rate. In Indiana and Connecticut, after "red flag" laws to remove guns from people who may pose a threat were enacted, gun suicides decreased by 7.5% and 13.7% respectively, while suicides by other means did not decrease during the same time. A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable.

The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired.

Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children's behavior around guns, stated, "We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves.... [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot 'gun-proof' them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children."
Read More

Pro 3

The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent.

The FBI found that arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total).

An editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health noted, "gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns." A study published in the same journal found that "the weapons used [in altercations]... were those closest at hand." And thus, according to another study, "[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

Common sense gun control laws can decrease the likelihood of a violent situation turning deadly. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012.When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%.
Read More

Pro 4

A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines.

According to a Feb. 20, 2018 Quinnipiac Poll, 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks. 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases.

As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the "gun show loophole").

53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans. 89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists.

77% of Americans support requiring a license to purchase a gun.

Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, "As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns."

Many would like to see the U.S. enact more laws like other countries, citing the fact that countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total). In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total). In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people).
Read More

Con 1

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."
Read More

Con 2

Gun control laws are discriminatory and infringe on citizens' rights

Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. Charles Gallagher, Chair of Sociology at LaSalle University, stated that some gun control laws are still founded on racial fears: "Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1."

Background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Background checks require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid's 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a "worry that you're going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected." Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes "on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance."

Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s.

Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, "So-called 'Assault weapons' are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term 'assault weapon' was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie... [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled 'assault weapons,' are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer." According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting.
Read More

Con 3

Gun control laws simply do not work.

Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, "there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates." Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The "gun show loophole" is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws. According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates.

Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.

The main reason gun control doesn't work is because laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. A Secret Service analysis found that of 24 mass shootings in 2019 at least 10 (42%) involved illegally possessed guns.

The logical conclusion is that gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A study in Applied Economics Letters found that "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law... Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'"

More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation-not violence." [82] [85] [154]
Read More

Con 4

Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens.

57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people."

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."

Concurring, Alex Jones, radio host, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs... 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"

Marco Rubio (R-FL), US Senator, speaking about gun control laws during his 2016 presidential campaign, stated, "If God forbid, ISIS visits our life, our neighborhood, our school, any part of us, the last thing standing, the last line of defense could very well be our ability to protect ourselves."
Read More

Did You Know?

1. A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer, and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.

2. The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks.

3. The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2015, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (67.3% of all homicides) and by suicide (51.9% of all suicides).

4. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people).

5. Carrying a concealed handgun in public has been permitted in all 50 states since 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation.

6. Five women a day are killed by guns in America. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Opponents say the amendment protects individual gun ownership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Freedom of speech is the right to state one's opinions and ideas without being stopped or punished. Sometimes this is also called Freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is thought to also include Freedom of information. However, new laws are usually needed to allow information to be used easily.

Most people think freedom of speech is necessary for a democratic government. In countries without free speech, people might be afraid to say what they think. Then, the government does not know what the people want. If the government does not know what they want, it cannot respond to their wants. Without free speech, the government does not have to worry as much about doing what the people want. Some people say this is why some governments do not allow free speech: they do not want to be criticised, or they fear there would be revolution if everyone knew everything that was happening in the country.

A well-known liberal thinker, John Stuart Mill, believed that freedom of speech is important because the society that people live in has a right to hear people's ideas. It's not just important because everyone should have a right to express him or herself.

Few countries with "free speech" let everything be said. For example, the United States Supreme Court said that it was against the law to shout "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire, because this might cause people to panic. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also says that it is not okay to cause national, racial or religious hatred. Also, some countries have laws against hate speech.

As Tocqueville pointed out, people may be hesitant to speak freely not because of fear of government punishment but because of social pressures. When an individual announces an unpopular opinion, he or she may face the disdain of their community or even be subjected to violent reactions. While this type of suppression of speech is even more difficult to prevent than government suppression is, there are questions about whether it truly falls within the ambit of freedom of speech, which is typically regarded as a legal right to be exercised against the government, or immunity from governmental action.

Images for kids

Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)-Article 19 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".

First page of John Milton's 1644 edition of Areopagitica, in which he argued forcefully against the Licensing Order of 1643

George Orwell statue at the headquarters of the BBC. A defence of free speech in an open society, the wall behind the statue is inscribed with the words "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear", words from George Orwell's proposed preface to Animal Farm (1945).

An "unexpurgated" edition of Lady Chatterley's Lover (1959)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Freedom of speech is the right to state one's opinions and ideas without being stopped or punished. Sometimes this is also called Freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is thought to also include Freedom of information. However, new laws are usually needed to allow information to be used easily.

# data[].attributes.headline
Teaching Children About Freedom Of Speech

# data[].attributes.subject
Teaching Children About Freedom Of Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a divided nation endures violence, protests and crackdowns on freedom of expression, there could not be a more important time to teach young children about the importance of freedom of speech.

Later this week, the United States will celebrate Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, offering an opportunity for children and adults (including parents, teachers and other community leaders) to take a look at the principles the U.S. democracy was built upon-and what they mean today. The First Amendment to the Constitution provides for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom to protest.

If children do not learn these basic values of free speech and expression, and they grow into adults who refrain from speaking or become intolerant of other points of view, what will happen to the Republic?

If children do not learn these basic values of free speech and expression, and they grow into adults who refrain from speaking or become intolerant of other points of view, what will happen to the Republic?

The First Amendment and the concept of free speech can sometimes be challenging to comprehend and appreciate, but freedom of expression is as relevant today as it was when the Bill of Rights was adopted on December 15, 1791. Individuals can exercise their First Amendment rights in various ways-from writing a letter to a government or community leader, to marching in a protest, putting a sign on their lawn or kneeling for the national anthem.

Debates about free speech are evolving on social media, on college campuses and in government actions. There could not be a more important time to teach young children about freedom of speech. In a 2020 Gallup and Knight Foundation survey of college students and their attitudes about free speech, 41% of the college students surveyed responded that they felt freedom of speech was "threatened/very threatened," a significant increase from 27% in the 2016 survey.

Today, citizens young and old are exercising their rights under the First Amendment-using their voices to challenge systemic racism and hate, advocate for LGBTQ rights, fight censorship on college campuses, petition for school openings (and closings) and build awareness about climate change. Meanwhile, government leaders both around the globe and right here in the U.S. are threatening to limit freedom of speech, with everything from legislation to litigation to violent force.

Civil rights hero John Lewis, the youngest speaker at the March on Washington in 1963, spent a lifetime encouraging others, particularly young people, to raise their voices to speak up about injustice. In 2017, Lewis told the Harvard Gazette: "I say to young people all the time, whether in high school or college or young people out in the work force or working on Capitol Hill, I say when you see something that's not right, not fair, not just, you cannot afford to be silent. You have to do something. Wherever you find yourself, speak up, speak out, and find a way to get in the way, to get in what I call 'good trouble, necessary trouble.'"

In recent years, few young voices have been as powerful and recognizable as those of Malala Yousafzai, Greta Thunberg and Emma Gonzalez. Malala, a 2014 Nobel Peace Prize winner (at 17, she was the youngest recipient to receive the prize), began using her voice at the age of 10, standing up to the Taliban in Pakistan and advocating for the rights of girls to receive a safe, free quality education. She and her father created the Malala Fund, an organization that advocates to hold governments accountable and to amplify girls' voices around the world.

Greta Thunberg launched a global movement to raise awareness for climate change beginning with a school strike at the age of 15, inspiring young people around the globe to stand up and speak out. Time Magazine named her Person of the Year in 2019, saying "she emerged as a standard bearer in a generational battle, an avatar of youth activists across the globe fighting for everything from gun control to democratic representation."

Here in the U.S., Emma Gonzalez, a Parkland student sparked a countrywide conversation about gun control and mass shootings after she survived a school shooting in 2018 and along with her fellow survivors launched March For Our Lives, an organization whose mission is "to harness the power of young people across the country to fight for sensible gun violence prevention policies that save lives." The organization now has hundreds of chapters around the U.S. led by students who work to enact change on the local level, using measures like organizing walkouts at high schools, lobbying for better safety measures on campus, writing statewide legislation, and showing up at school board and city council meetings.

And there are countless other young people using their voices to advocate for a better world and causes they believe in-everything from ending childhood hunger to improving literacy and getting more girls involved in programming.

It is crucial that they begin to learn the value of free speech and the power of using your voice from an early age. With this in mind, prominent First Amendment attorney Sandy Bohrer (my father), and I decided to write a children's book, Your Voice Is Your Superpower: A Beginner's Guide to Freedom of Speech (and the First Amendment), for ages four to seven to help parents and teachers start a series of conversations about the free and open exchange of ideas, thoughts and beliefs.

In an interview with Forbes last spring, I asked Hilde Lysiak, the then 12-year-old editor and publisher of theOrange Street News who started her own newspaper at the age of seven, what she thought about the importance of teaching young people about freedom of speech. "It's really just so important because without information and if the people with power were allowed to dictate what you could or couldn't say, not even just with reporting but in general, then we wouldn't be really free," she said. Lysiak defended her rights to free speech in an encounter with a state marshal in Arizona near the border with Mexico when he attempted to prevent her from reporting last February.

This June, an eight-year-old boy organized a Black Lives Matter protest in a St. Louis suburb, gathering hundreds of people to march against racial injustice. That same month, in New York, children marched outside the Brooklyn Public Library to protest systemic racism, giving speeches pledging to stop violence against black children and imploring everyone to help fight Covid-19 by wearing masks. In July, two Cedarsburg, Wisconsin, high school seniors discovered their school would not require masks but still banned spaghetti straps. They started a petition, organized a protest and won. Nearly 1,500 people submitted their signature, and within two weeks, their school district voted to reverse the policy-deciding that students and teachers would be required to wear masks when schools reopened.

It is well established that the voices and actions of children and young adults can change the world. At a time of considerable risk and fear, young people are increasingly meeting the moment. A seed of hope is planted in every child inspired to become an active, educated and engaged citizen participating in a free, democratic society to bring about positive change.

Your Voice Is Your SuperPower: A Beginner's Guide to Freedom of Speech (& the First Amendment) by Jessica and Sandy Bohrer, published by City Point Press. (c) 2020 by the authors.

... Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching Children About Freedom Of Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Later this week, the United States will celebrate Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, offering an opportunity for children and adults (including parents, teachers and other community leaders) to take a look at the principles the U.S. democracy was built upon-and what they mean today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The First Amendment - Bill of Rights - U.S. Constitution - Social Studies Educational Video for Kids

# data[].attributes.headline
The Three Rules of Hate Speech and First Amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
The Three Rules of Hate Speech and First Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 3 Rules of Hate Speech: Free Speech Rules (Episode 2)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Things You Should Know About Free Speech in Schools: Free Speech Rules (Episode 1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Limits of Free Speech | Intellections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom of Speech: Crash Course Government and Politics #25

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"With good mental health literacy, we learn how to take better care of ourselves, our loved ones and our communities. We are empowered and provided with the skills that we need to help us build better lives, better systems of care and a better society." ~ Wei & Kutcher 2018
GET LITERATE The Elementary Mental Health Literacy Resource (EMHLR) is a classroom-ready resource designed to support multiple school environments, including in-person, online and hybrid instruction. With character-driven and developmentally-informed materials, the EMHLR engages students to:
build and maintain positive mental health
decrease stigma surrounding mental illness
increase understanding of common mental disorders
improve help-seeking skills LEARN MORE The Mental Health and High School Curriculum Guide provides a complete set of evidence-based, online modular resources proven to increase the understanding of mental health and mental disorders, decrease the stigma of mental illness and enhance help-seeking efficacy among both students and teachers. LEARN MORE The first publication of its kind, providing
students with information on topics
including time management, relationships,
money, school, sexual activity, mental illness,
suicide and addictions. It includes self-help
information for socio-economic & healthcare
needs and contains recommendations on
where to get help. LEARN MORE

What are Mental Disorders? What is Brain Injury? What is Stigma? We need to know as much about our minds as we do our bodies. Check out our videos on our YouTube channel to learn more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"With good mental health literacy, we learn how to take better care of ourselves, our loved ones and our communities. We are empowered and provided with the skills that we need to help us build better lives, better systems of care and a better society."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NAMI Ending the Silence

A presentation for middle and high school students, school staff and parents or guardians.

LEARN MORE

NAMI In Our Own Voice

A presentation by people with mental health conditions to promote awareness and recovery.

LEARN MORE

Contact Your Local NAMI

Across the country, thousands of trained volunteers bring peer-led programs and lived experience to your community.

LEARN MORE

Helpful Articles & Stories

You Are Not Along

Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NAMI Ending the Silence A presentation for middle and high school students, school staff and parents or guardians. LEARN MORE NAMI In Our Own Voice A presentation by people with mental health conditions to promote awareness and recovery. LEARN MORE Contact Your Local NAMI Across the country, thousands of trained volunteers bring peer-led programs and lived experience to your community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bias is prevalent in every aspect of our lives. Our brains are hardwired to categorize things we encounter in order to make sense of the complicated world around us. However, biases can cause us to form prejudices against others, which allows for egregious inequalities to form between different demographics.

While bias comes in many forms, this article focuses on gender bias and its role within the workplace. We'll cover what it is, where and when it happens, along with 14 ways you can reduce gender bias and ultimately build a more diverse and inclusive workplace. It should be noted that, while there is a spectrum of gender identities, due to constraints within existing literature we'll focus on the gender binary of men and women.

Gender Bias Definition

Gender Bias Definition and Types

Gender bias is the tendency to prefer one gender over another. It is a form of unconscious bias, or implicit bias, which occurs when one individual unconsciously attributes certain attitudes and stereotypes to another person or group of people. These biases can affect how the individual understands and engages with others.

In today's society, gender bias is often used to refer to the preferential treatment men receive - specifically white, heterosexual men. It's often labeled as sexism and describes the prejudice against women solely on the basis of their sex. Gender bias is most prominently visible within professional settings.

Another term often used interchangeably with gender bias is gender discrimination, which is the unequal treatment of a person or group of people because of gender-based prejudice.

In addition to gender bias, there are a number of other types of unconscious bias that disproportionately affect women's success in the workplace, which include:

Performance Support Bias

Performance support bias occurs when employers, managers and colleagues provide more resources and opportunities to one gender (typically men) over another.

One study found that, among sales employees - who are paid based on performance and commission - women are unfairly assigned inferior accounts compared to men, even though women have proven to produce the same results when given equivalent sales opportunities.

Performance Review Bias

Performance review bias occurs when employers, managers and colleagues review an employee of one gender differently from another gender - even when the evaluations are purely merit-based.

Harvard Business Review found that performance evaluations are inherently biased, even when companies make an effort to remove bias by making them open-ended. In fact, without structure to evaluations, people are more likely to review an individual on the basis of stereotypes related to gender and race than reviewing individuals based on merit.

Performance Reward Bias

Performance reward bias occurs when employers, managers and colleagues reward an employee of one gender differently from another gender. Rewards may be in the form of promotions, raises or other merit-based rewards.

While it may seem like rewarding individuals on merit would help eliminate gender bias, it's not as cut-and-dry as you think. One study found that when women and minorities receive the same exact performance evaluation score as white men for the same job and work unit, they receive lower pay increases than white men.

Glass Ceiling

A major result of these biases have contributed to the creation of the glass ceiling. The glass ceiling is a metaphor for the evident but intangible hierarchical impediment that prevents minorities and women from achieving elevated professional success.

Due to contributing factors, like the aforementioned types of bias, women and minorities experience a barrier that prevents them from reaching upper-level roles in leadership and the C-suite.

With the basics of gender bias down, let's review some statistics to see where and how such biases affect women in the workplace.

Gender Bias Statistics

To further illustrate the role gender bias plays in the office, we've gathered a number of statistics related to diversity and gender bias in the workplace:

42 percent of women experience gender discrimination at work.

In 2022, 59 percent of women said they had experienced harassment or microaggressions at work in the past year.

93 percent of women say they fear that reporting non-inclusive behaviors at work will have a negative effect on their career.

Globally, almost 50 percent of people believe men are better political leaders, while more than 40 percent see men as better business executives.

In fiscal year 2022, 19,805 charges were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for sex-based discrimination.

Both men and women are twice as likely to hire a male candidate.

Women are 79 times more likely to be hired when there are at least two female candidates in the finalist pool.

Half of men believe women are well-represented at their company, when 90 percent of senior leaders are men.

Men are 30 percent more likely to obtain managerial roles.

Women and men ask for pay raises at the same rate, but women receive them 7 percent less often.

Companies with executive teams in the top quartile for gender diversity are 25 percent more likely to see above-average profitability.

5 percent of CEOs globally are women.

Women represent just over 28 percent of boardroom seats.

19.2 percent of C-suite roles are filled by women.

5 percent of C-suite roles are held by women of color.

10.4 percent of CEOs at Fortune 500 companies are women.

As of 2023, women of color make up 1 percent of CEOs at Fortune 500 companies.

Examples of Gender Bias in the Workplace

When it comes down to it, gender bias can happen at all stages of recruiting, hiring and retaining employees. In this section, we're going to break down some key areas where gender bias affects candidates and their careers.

Many Recruiting Strategies are Biased

Throughout the recruiting process, there can be traces of gender bias, starting with where and how you recruit candidates.

Looking for a job after graduating college, Erin McKelvey didn't receive a single response from employers. When she changed her name from Erin (historically a feminine name) to Mack (considered a more masculine name) on her resume, she received a 70 percent response rate.

Additionally, employers may unconsciously (or consciously) place open roles on platforms with predominantly male candidates or actively target men through ads. Aside from being unethical, know that this is also illegal.

Further Reading A Simple Way to Improve Diversity Efforts in Hiring

Job Descriptions Contain Gender Bias

Even something as mundane as a job description contains traces of unconscious bias. Language inherently has gendered associations. Including words like confident, decisive, strong and outspoken have been found to attract male candidates and deter female candidates.

Research also shows that men apply to jobs where they meet 60 percent of the qualifications while women only apply to jobs when they meet 100 percent of the qualifications. Meaning, if your job description has a lot of unnecessary or strict requirements, you are unintentionally weeding out women from applying to your open roles.

Interview Questions Can Be Gender Biased

When interviews are not standardized, the questions interviewers ask can be biased based on the candidate's personality, experiences and even gender.

One study found that hiring managers tend to ask male candidates to perform more math-based interview tests and female candidates more verbal interview tests.

Hiring managers are also more likely to ask female candidates about parental plans and responsibilities. While discriminating against parents and pregnant people is illegal, asking questions about a candidate's parental status technically isn't illegal.

Hiring Managers Are Unconsciously Gender Biased

One study found that when candidates were assessed separately by individual hiring managers, 51 percent of managers were influenced by the candidate's gender and selected the under-performing candidate. However, when candidates were evaluated by a hiring team together, gender didn't affect their decision, they simply hired the highest performing candidate.

Additionally, during the interview, hiring managers tend to ask more targeted questions about a female candidate's leadership abilities and unconsciously prefer more masculine leadership styles.

Gender Bias Can Influence Mentors and Mentoring Opportunities

It's clear that gender biases play a significant role in women's ability to excel in their careers and reach upper level roles. It also doesn't help that 60 percent of male managers have said they are uncomfortable mentoring, socializing with or working one-on-one with female employees.

In order to achieve upper-level positions, however, it is highly beneficial for individual contributors to have a mentor supporting them throughout their career. One survey revealed employees at every income level who had a mentor were more likely to be satisfied with their jobs compared to those who did not participate in mentorship. And for non-white women between the ages of 45 and 54, 95 percent of those who had a mentor reported satisfaction with their job compared to 82 percent of those without a mentor. Employees with mentors are also more likely to report that their employer gave them opportunities to advance their careers.

Compensation and Rewards Reflect Gender Bias

The gender pay gap is no joke. Payscale's Gender Pay Gap Report shows women make 83 cents for every dollar men make, which the salary platform company refers to as the "uncontrolled gender pay gap." The "controlled gender pay gap" compares men and women with the same jobs and qualifications. That metric shows women making 99 cents for every dollar men earn. While those numbers are substantially closer, the Payscale report argues, "This is equal pay for equal work. The gap should be zero."

When considering the gender pay gap, you must account for the fact that more women are segregated to lower-level jobs in low-paying industries and are unable to obtain upper-level roles due to biases and the glass ceiling. These disparities in opportunities, prevent women from excelling in their career and inhibits their ability to make the same amount as men. At every stage of their careers, women face barriers that place them at a disadvantage for career opportunities, mentorships, promotions and pay raises.

Perks and Benefits Affect Genders Differently

The perks and benefits companies offer can significantly contribute to gender bias and opportunity discrepancies between genders. This is especially true when it comes to benefits for working parents since women are typically assigned to act as the primary caregiver of children, which has led to a motherhood penalty.

More than 80 percent of U.S. workers believe putting working mothers in leadership positions leads to greater success, according to a Bright Horizons survey. Just over 90 percent also agree mothers have unique skills they can bring to leadership.

The Bright Horizons survey also revealed 41 percent of workers view mothers as being less committed to their jobs and 38 percent judge them for needing flexible schedules. Of working parents surveyed, 72 percent said "women are penalized in their careers for starting families, while men are not."

For working fathers, paid paternity leave is less likely to be offered by employers than maternity leave. And when the benefit is offered by companies, 23 percent of men are not taking parental leave at all. There is still a strong stigma that suggests taking parental leave will harm one's career, which is a serious concern to 63 percent of men.

Parental Status Affects Income and Career Development

For working mothers, inequalities are even more drastic.

As of 2020, mothers earned 74 cents for every dollar fathers earned, according to the National Women's Law Center. That wage gap results in $17,000 in yearly losses for mothers who work full-time, and women of color who have children lose out on upwards of $30,000 each year. Almost one in five women who had children living in their homes said they sometimes or often could not afford enough food in the past week in July 2022.

Federal pregnancy discrimination suits have been on the rise, according to Bloomberg Law. The number of pregnancy-related claims filed in 2020 was up by 67 percent compared to 2016, despite declines in U.S. pregnancies and births.

Sexual Harassment In the Workplace Affects Genders Differently

While both men and women experience sexual harassment, nearly 78.2 percent of EEOC sexual harassment charges between fiscal years 2018 and 2021 were filed by women. A staggering 70 percent of women who experience sexual harassment, experience it in the workplace.

A 2022 Deloitte survey found that 14 percent of 5,000 women from 10 countries who responded had been harassed at work. More than 40 percent of these instances of " unwanted physical advances or repeated disparaging comments" went unreported, with embarrassment identified as the top reason for not speaking up. Less than a quarter of the women surveyed said their employer had "a clear process for reporting discrimination and harassment."

Whether women decide to start over somewhere else or risk retaliation from addressing the issue, they are at a constant risk of harming their careers after being sexually harassed.

Gender Bias Intersects With Racial Bias

Close to 60 percent of women who responded to a 2020 survey said they had experienced discrimination based on their race or gender or obstacles to getting jobs that pay more. That same survey also showed "roughly half of women who identify as Black and Latinx do not have enough money right now to pay for their basic needs.". Both demographic groups were the least confident they were being paid equally at work.

The pay gap is broadest for women who identify as American Indian and Alaska Native, according to Payscale. They earn 72 cents for every dollar earned by white men. That's followed by Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander women who make 78 cents, Hispanic women who make 79 cents and Black or African American women who make 80 cents for every dollar white men make.

Women Are Interrupted or Talked Over More Than Men

One example of unconscious gender bias is the fact that men interrupt 33 percent more often when they speak with women compared to when they speak with men, according to a George Washington University study. This behavior can lead to situations where a woman's voice is not amplified as well as her male counterparts and she will be more likely to be dismissed. Women may also find themselves in a situation where after voicing an idea to minimal fanfare, they hear that same idea amplified by a male co-worker to greater praise.

More on bias at work Understanding Microaggressions at Work

14 Ways to Reduce Gender Bias in the Workplace

Now that we know where to look for gender bias in the workplace, let's tackle some ways to actively reduce biases and create a more diverse and inclusive workplace.

Ways to Reduce Gender Bias in the Workplace

1. Collect and Analyze Employee Demographic Data

Start by collecting data about your employee demographics. Look at disparities between men and women by department, seniority and retention. You may also consider publishing this information on your careers page to remain transparent with your entire company and to hold your team accountable for moving the needle toward becoming an entirely gender diverse and equal opportunity employer.

2. Collect and Analyze Employee Compensation Data

Conduct regular pay audits to identify how men and women are paid and promoted differently. Consider both the adjusted and unadjusted pay gaps that we talked about earlier in this article.

Also, it may behoove you to publish your findings for the entire company to see or even on your careers page. One survey found women who said their employer had implemented pay transparency earned between $1 and $1.01 on average for every $1 a man earned.

3. Run Experiments Unique to Your Team

Employee engagement surveys are a great way to gather more data about your team and identify trends in how your employees engage in their work. Keep in mind that in order to obtain the best, most unfiltered responses, you'll want to keep these surveys anonymous. If your teams are small and not highly gender diverse, you may not want to ask for personal information like job title or even gender because if there's only one woman with a specific role on the team, she will be easily identifiable.

Additionally, you may want to implement perception surveys, which focus on the safety of your employees. Anonymous surveys like this provide an opportunity for employees to share experiences they've encountered, like sexual harassment or gender bias, that may not have been addressed in standard employee engagement surveys.

4. Identify Gender Bias in Your Recruiting Process

To reduce gender bias in your recruiting process, start by looking at the language you use. You can use a gender decoder tool to identify biased language in your job descriptions. You could also plug in recruitment content from emails, interview questions and employer branding materials for social media and your careers page.

Make sure to attract enough great candidates, having at least two women in the finalist pool has been shown to improve a woman's chance of being hired by 79 times.

5. Utilize Automation and Artificial Intelligence

One simple way to reduce gender bias in your recruiting process is to invest in recruitment tools that utilize automation or artificial intelligence to make decisions.

Not only will this save time during the initial screening process, but it will help filter through candidates based on merit rather than gender or other characteristics that may place them at a biased and unfair disadvantage.

However, it is also important to note that artificial intelligence is a type of machine learning, so over time, if human biases are introduced, artificial intelligence can learn and perpetuate those biases, so take precautions when using such technology to reduce bias early on.

6. Implement Regular Gender Bias Training

Sure, biases are a simple fact of life, but that doesn't mean they are set in stone. The best way to reduce unconscious gender bias is to learn about it and take action to alter your perception of biases for the better.

Start by informing your team of the different types of unconscious bias and then look for diversity and inclusion professionals or unconscious bias programs near you that will support your efforts with regular training.

7. Standardize Mentoring or Utilize E-Mentoring

To provide all of your employees with equal opportunities, create a standardized mentoring process. Although 76 percent of people said they consider mentorship to be important, less than half actually have a mentor. More than 90 percent of people who have mentors say they're satisfied with their jobs.

If a mentor program doesn't quite work for your team, consider partnering with an e-mentoring program to connect your employees with professionals outside of your company.

8. Provide Leadership Training Opportunities

First of all, individual contributors shouldn't be expected to be naturally great leaders. Leadership training should be mandatory for everyone growing in their careers to ensure they know how to manage and lead teams, which is often a skill set that needs to be learned.

Such training is essential to reducing gender bias, closing the gender wage gap and breaking the glass ceiling. It will also help both men and women become better mentors for females earlier in their careers.

To reach gender equality, fill the pay gap and break the glass ceiling, companies need to proactively provide women with leadership and professional development opportunities.

9. Give Everyone a Seat at the Table For Important projects

When you're implementing a new project, make sure you're bringing together a diverse team with a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences to tackle it. One study found that gender diverse teams are 73 percent better at decision making than teams that are all men.

10. Offer Perks and Benefits for Equal Opportunities

When you review the perks and benefits you offer, bring your entire team in on the conversation. Provide them an opportunity to share honest feedback on the benefits they wish your team had and the benefits that would draw them to another company. If you have a young company, employees may value parental leave benefits, whereas if your employees are later in their careers, they may care more about retirement benefits. Having these conversations will help you invest in benefits that will actually support your employee's work-life balance.

Additionally, parental leave brings a wealth of benefits, including boosting retention rates, reducing the 'motherhood penalty,' as well as improving morale at work.

And when it comes to parental leave, it's important to include working fathers and encourage them to actually take the leave. One study found for every month a man takes parental leave, women's salaries increase correspondingly by 7 percent, helping to further close the gender pay gap.

11. Create an Office Space for Everyone

Believe it or not, your physical office space can play a role in how men and women interact in the workplace. Certain office designs have even been found to be more or less inclusive for different demographics. In industries that have been dominated by men, oftentimes, there aren't even bathrooms for women.

Many companies also do not offer a mother's room, forcing working moms to breastfeed in the bathroom or other places that are less than welcoming and unhygienic.

Read Next Women in Tech Statistics: Despite Great Strides, Challenges Persist

12. Diversify Your Boardroom

Beyond managerial or even C-level leadership positions, companies also need to take a hard look at their board of directors.

As of 2022, 28.2 percent of global boardroom seats were held by women. Though there have been steps taken to change this there is still a lot of work to do. A study performed at UC Berkeley Haas School of Business showed that, "Companies with more women on their board of directors are more likely to be companies that have programs, guidelines, and clear policies to avoid corrupt business dealings, have strong partnerships and have high levels of disclosure and transparency." If you're looking for ways to build a more diverse and transparent workplace and business, appointing more women to your board of directors is a perfect place to start.

13. Review Your Anti-Discrimination and Bias Policies

Review your nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policies, and make sure this information is included in job descriptions, employee handbooks and your careers page. In addition to your policies, provide employees with information and resources on who to reach out to in different situations. Include clear steps for what is going to happen so people know what to expect when they file a complaint.

14. Use Anonymous evaluations and standardized hiring processes

One way to help reduce gender bias is to standardize hiring processes, and in some cases, remove the individual's name from the evaluation process entirely (such as when reviewing resumes of potential candidates.) When performing interviews, whether for a new hire or an internal promotion, all candidates should be asked the same questions, with responses assigned numerical ratings based on predetermined criteria. Defining clear thresholds for performance management helps standardize expectations across the organization as well.

Setting standards for all processes at any organization provides a benchmark for every employee to work up to and reduces cases of less-qualified employees being rewarded over high performers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn what gender bias in the workplace is and gain 70+ statistic-backed examples and ways to reduce gender bias in your own workplace.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Adolescence (10-19 years) is a unique and formative time. Multiple physical, emotional and social changes, including exposure to poverty, abuse, or violence, can make adolescents vulnerable to mental health problems. Promoting psychological well-being and protecting adolescents from adverse experiences and risk factors that may impact their potential to thrive are critical for their well-being during adolescence and for their physical and mental health in adulthood.

# data[].attributes.headline
Explained | World's Water Crisis | FULL EPISODE 

# data[].attributes.subject
Explained | World's Water Crisis | FULL EPISODE 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Explained | World's Water Crisis | FULL EPISODE | Netflix

# data[].attributes.headline
Clean Water and Sanitation: A Global Report Card

# data[].attributes.subject
Clean Water and Sanitation: A Global Report Card

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Last Updated

Sept. 24, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
un global goal: clean water and sanitation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Clean Water and Sanitation: A Global Report Card

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The sixth Sustainable Development Goal set forward by the United Nations (UN) is acess to clean water and sanitation. However, between rising demands for water and lack of sanitation services in many regions around the world, we have a long way to go before all people will be free to enjoy this essential human right.

# data[].attributes.headline
Global water crisis: Facts, FAQs, and how to help

# data[].attributes.subject
Global water crisis: Facts, FAQs, and how to help

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's nothing more essential to life on Earth than water. Yet, from Cape Town to Flint, Michigan, and from rural, sub-Saharan Africa to Asia's teeming megacities, there's a global water crisis. People are struggling to access the quantity and quality of water they need for drinking, cooking, bathing, handwashing, and growing their food.

Amazing progress has been made in making clean drinking water accessible to 2.6 billion people in developing countries from 1990 to 2015. That's an increase from 76% of the global population to 91% during that time. Yet there are still many opportunities to multiply the benefits of clean water through improved sanitation and hygiene education.

The United Nations recognizes the importance of addressing the global water crisis each year on World Water Day, March 22.

Globally, 844 million people lack access to clean water. Without clean, easily accessible water, families and communities are locked in poverty for generations. Children drop out of school and parents struggle to make a living.

Women and children are worst affected - children because they are more vulnerable to diseases of dirty water and women and girls because they often bear the burden of carrying water for their families for an estimated 200 million hours each day. Read the story of Ireen, an 8-year-old in Malawi who walks for water daily.

Access to clean water changes everything; it's a stepping-stone to development. When people gain access to clean water, they are better able to practice good hygiene and sanitation. Children enjoy good health and are more likely to attend school. Parents put aside their worries about water-related diseases and lack of access to clean water. Instead, they can water crops and livestock and diversify their incomes. Communities no longer vie for rights to a waterhole.

Every child deserves clean water.

FAQs: What you need to know about the global water crisis

Explore frequently asked questions about water, sanitation, and hygiene. Learn how you can help children and families who lack clean water.

Fast facts: Global water crisis

844 million people lack basic drinking water access, more than 1 of every 10 people on the planet.

Women and girls spend an estimated 200 million hours hauling water every day.

The average woman in rural Africa walks 6 kilometers every day to haul 40 pounds of water.

Every day, more than 800 children under age 5 die from diarrhea attributed to poor water and sanitation.

By 2050, at least 1 in 4 people will likely live in a country affected by chronic or recurring fresh-water shortages.

2.3 billion people live without access to basic sanitation.

892 million people practice open defecation.

One of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals aims to provide universal access to clean water and sanitation by 2030.

90% of all natural disasters are water-related.

BACK TO QUESTIONS
How can I help end the global water crisis?

You can help bring clean water to families in need as a supporter of World Vision. Over the last three years, we reached more than 12.7 million people with clean water. Our goals for the future are even more ambitious, but achievable, with your help.

Pray: Ask God to pour his blessings out on families in need of clean water.

Give: Help provide clean water for children and families.

Run or walk in the Global 6K for Water May 16, 2020 - right from your own home or neighborhood - to bring clean water to children around the world. You can also make a long-term commitment to join Team World Vision in the race to bring clean water and the opportunity for fullness of life to children around the world.

BACK TO QUESTIONS
What are the benefits of water, sanitation, and hygiene for children and families?

An investment in clean water, combined with basic sanitation and hygiene education, is one of the most effective ways to improve lives and fight extreme poverty. The benefits include:

Families become healthier: Water, sanitation, and hygiene programs work together to powerfully prevent the spread of most illnesses, and are one of the most effective ways to reduce child deaths.

Children are better nourished: Safe water, sanitation, and hygiene help kids grow taller, smarter, and stronger. They get more nutrition from the food they eat because they are not sick. Families are able to use water to irrigate gardens for more nutritious food year-round.

Children can attend and excel in school: When children don't have to walk long distances to get water, they have more time to attend school and more energy to learn. This is especially important for girls, who most often collect water for the family.

Family income improves: Families spend less money on healthcare and are better able pay for things like school supplies and fees. Water also is used for income-generating activities like making soap, bricks, and shea butter, as well as watering livestock and gardens.

BACK TO QUESTIONS
Why do you combine clean water with sanitation and hygiene? What is WASH?

Providing hygiene education and sanitation facilities, such as latrines and hand-washing stations, multiplies the health benefits of clean water by helping to reduce the spread of illness and disease. In fact, handwashing alone has been shown to result in children growing taller, stronger, and smarter. So intertwined are the issues of water, sanitation, and hygiene that they have been combined into one sector known in the global aid community as WASH.
BACK TO QUESTIONS
How are women and girls affected by lack of clean water?

Women and girls bear the greatest burden because in the developing world they are most likely to be responsible for hauling water to their homes. They spend an estimated 200 million hours collecting water every day. The average African woman walks 6 kilometers to haul 40 pounds of water each day. This daily grind saps her energy for other activities and robs her of the opportunity to spend this time with her family, or pursue school and income activities to improve their lives.

Girls who attend school until adolescence are more likely to drop out when they start menstruating unless their school has clean water, latrines, sanitary supplies, and hygiene training. Helping young women to manage menstrual health is not just about providing appropriate facilities, but also includes addressing social norms.

At childbirth, lack of sanitation, clean water, and proper hygiene contribute to high rates of disease and death among mothers and newborns in the developing world. World Vision is accelerating its push to bring clean water, latrines, and hand-washing facilities to more health clinics to assure safer deliveries.
BACK TO QUESTIONS
How much does it cost to bring clean water to one person?

Our average cost for World Vision to bring clean water to one person in Africa is $50. But this price actually includes much more than just clean water. It also includes the costs involved to ensure that a well or water point is maintained so it will last for generations. Also, by leveraging other resources, such as child sponsorship and local funds, each person who benefits from clean water is also trained and equipped to practice safe sanitation and hygiene.

For every $1 invested in clean water, the health benefits amount to $4.30.
BACK TO QUESTIONS
Milestones of the global water crisis

1700s to 1800s: Industrialization leads to increased urbanization in England, highlighting the need for clean water supplies and sanitation.

1800s: Water shortages first appear in historical records.

1854: Dr. John Snow discovers the link between water and the spread of cholera during an outbreak in London.

1866: In the United States, there are 136 public water systems; by the turn of the century, there are 3,000.

1900: Since 1900, more than 11 billion people have died from drought, and drought has affected more than 2 billion people.

1972: The U.S. Clean Water Act updates 1948 legislation to control water pollution and funds construction of sewage treatment plants.

1993: The U.N. General Assembly designates March 22 as World Water Day.

2000: The U.N. member states set Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for development progress, including a 2015 target to halve the number of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water.

2003: UN-Water was founded as coordinating platform for issues of sanitation and fresh water access.

2005: About 35% of the global population experiences chronic water shortages, up from 9% in 1960.

2005 to 2015: U.N. member states prioritize water and sanitation development during International Decade for Action "Water for Life."

2008: The U.N.-recognized International Year of Sanitation prioritizes health and dignity.

2010: The MDGs clean water access target is achieved five years ahead of schedule. More than 2 billion people have gained access to safe drinking water since 1990. The U.N. General Assembly recognizes the right of each person to have adequate supplies of water for personal and domestic use that are physically accessible, equitably distributed, safe, and affordable.

2013: The U.N. designates Nov. 19 as World Toilet Day to highlight the global issue that billions of people still do not have access to proper sanitation.

2015: About 2.6 billion people have gained access to clean water in last 25 years, and about 1.4 billion gained basic access to sanitation since 2000. The U.N. member states sign on to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) - successors to the MDGs, that promise clean water and sanitation for all by 2030.

2018: Worldwide, 2.1 billion people still live without safe drinking water in their homes and more than 892 million people still have no choice but to defecate outside.
BACK TO QUESTIONS
World Vision's water work

World Vision is the leading nongovernmental provider of clean drinking water in the developing world. We focus on bringing water to the extremely poor - including those with disabilities - in rural areas with the greatest disease burden. More than 700 World Vision water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) professionals and thousands of development professionals live and work in communities worldwide to co-create solutions that last.

World Vision's work results in water that continues to flow. We invest an average of 15 years in a community, cultivating local ownership and training locals to manage and maintain water points. An independent study by The Water Institute at the University of North Carolina, one of the premier academic groups in water research, examined 1,470 water sources in 520 communities located in the Greater Afram Plains region of Ghana. The report of their research, published in 2015, showed that nearly 80% of wells drilled by World Vision continued to function at high levels even after 20 years, thanks largely to our community engagement model.

World Vision believes we can solve the global water crisis within our lifetimes. Our efforts include:

Drilling, developing, and repairing wells and other vital water points

Teaching local community members how to keep water flowing

Overseeing the building of latrines and hand-washing facilities

Promoting healthy hygiene practices through education and behavior change programming.

Timeline of World Vision's water work

1960s: World Vision begins small water projects.

Early 1980s: Severe droughts in Africa focus the world's attention on the urgent need for clean, accessible water.

1985: World Vision begins water drilling projects in Ghana.

1990: World Vision increases its commitment to clean water, and the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation partners in the Ghana water effort.

2000s: Scaling up water work

2003: West Africa Water Initiative extends drilling into Mali and Niger.

2005: West Africa's 2,000th well is drilled in Ghana.

2006: Large-scale water work begins in Ethiopia.

2009: Large-scale water work beings in Zambia, including sanitation and hygiene practices.

2011: World Vision begins intentional scale-up of water and sanitation activities in 10 countries in Africa. Numbers of clean water beneficiaries increase 20-fold when comparing 2010 to 2016.

2012: Drilling begins in Honduras.

2013: Drilling begins in India. World Vision and Procter & Gamble (P&G) celebrate a partnership that has provided 1 billion liters of purified water, hosting former President Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton to see the impact in Rwanda.

2014: University of North Carolina independent study reveals nearly 80% of World Vision wells in Ghana still function at high levels, even after 20 years. The 1,000th productive well is drilled in Mali. In December, the U.S. Congress passes Water for the World Act, prioritizing the provision of clean water and sanitation for the world's most vulnerable people. World Vision starts reaching one person every 30 seconds with clean water.

2015: Driven by a $40 million gift to its water programs by Dana and Dave Dornsife, World Vision announces in September plans to reach one new person with clean water every 10 seconds by 2020 - eventually achieving universal water access everywhere it works by 2030.

2016: World Vision expands its water, sanitation, and hygiene work into more countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, along with the Middle East, reaching 4.6 million new people with clean water.

2017: World Vision now reaches one new person every 10 seconds with clean water. In June, World Vision drills its 1,500th borehole well since 2003 in Mali.

2018 to 2030: World Vision sets ambitious goals for global water work

2020: 20 million new people served with clean water

2022: Clean water made available for everyone, everywhere we work in Rwanda.

2030: 50 million people - everyone, everywhere we work - have access to clean water and sanitation.

Learn more about World Vision's water work.
BACK TO QUESTIONS
What is World Vision's 2030 goal for its water programs? Is it achievable?

World Vision's goal is that by 2030 all communities located within our development areas worldwide will have access to clean water, adequate sanitation, hand-washing facilities, and menstrual hygiene facilities, as well as hygiene promotion and behavior change.

The global WASH program will specifically promote the inclusion of the most vulnerable men, women, and children. It will ensure that people with disabilities, those affected by HIV and AIDS, and other vulnerable groups in each area are actively included and benefit from hygiene messaging and increased access to sustainable safe water and improved sanitation.

We believe through partnering with local governments, communities, and other humanitarian organizations, collectively we can achieve this goal. In 2019, World Vision helped 3.3 million people achieve access to clean water and 2.5 million people with improved sanitation.
BACK TO QUESTIONS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global water crisis: Facts, FAQs, and how to help | World Vision

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's nothing more essential to life on Earth than water. Yet, from Cape Town to Flint, Michigan, and from rural, sub-Saharan Africa to Asia's teeming megacities, there's a global water crisis. People are struggling to access the quantity and quality of water they need for drinking, cooking, bathing, handwashing, and growing their food.

# data[].attributes.headline
Human Rights - Safe Drinking Water Foundation

# data[].attributes.subject
Human Rights - Safe Drinking Water Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HUMAN RIGHTS FACT SHEET

"In this new century, water, its sanitation, and its equitable distribution pose great social challenges for our world. We need to safeguard the global supply of healthy water and to ensure that everyone has access to it." -- UN Secretary - General Kofi Annan, 2001.

What is a Human Right?

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), human rights are universal and the birthright of every human being. Human rights safeguard the dignity and equal worth of each person and cannot be taken away. Many human rights are related and interdependent. Human rights are often written in a way that delegates the countries (or states) as responsible for ensuring that people can enjoy their human rights.

Is Water Considered a Human Right?

Under international human rights laws, water is protected as a human right. In the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, water is not explicitly mentioned as a human right. It was, however, implied through other human rights, such as the right to life, right to an adequate standard of living, and the right to health.

In 2002, the United Nations officially adopted water as a human right. General Comment 15, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states the following: "The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses." This means that the 145 countries who have endorsed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have to ensure fair and equal access to safe drinking water.

What Does it Mean if Water is a Human Right?

The right to water has several dimensions. The quantity of water must be, at a minimum, sufficient to meet basic needs, in terms of drinking, bathing, cleaning, cooking and sanitation. For more information about water quantity and consumption, see the Water Consumption fact sheet.

The quality of the water must be safe and free from contamination. Though the quality of water can vary with its use (for example, drinking, sanitation and agriculture require different qualities), water should never contain anything that could pose a health threat.

The third aspect of the right to water is accessibility. Water must be physically accessible, meaning that water facilities must be within the house or in close proximity of the house. If a person must walk for hours to get water, then they are not enjoying their right to water. Water must also be economically accessible, meaning that fees should not be so high that people must either drink contaminated water, or sacrifice other basic human rights to be able to afford safe drinking water. Lastly, water must be accessible for all people, including the most vulnerable and marginalized people.

The government is obliged to ensure that people can enjoy their basic human rights. There are three levels of obligation. First, the government must respect the right, and not do anything to interfere with the right. In the case of drinking water, this means that the government cannot deny anyone access to safe drinking water. The second level of the government's duty is to protect the right, by preventing third party interference. For drinking water, this may involve the establishment of legislation that prohibits manufacturing companies from polluting drinking water. The third level of obligation is to fulfill the right, when necessary. In the case of drinking water, this may require the government to establish a water treatment plant or construct wells to provide safe drinking water.

Many conflicts around the world are results of competition for resources, including water. For example, the Darfur war, in Sudan, began when drought and desertification forced Arab nomads to move to the southern Darfur region, where they had to compete with African farmers for water. Experts speculate that, because much of the conflict in Darfur is due to present water shortages, the recent discovery of a large underground lake may assist in ending the unrest. For more information about the underground lake, and how it is expected to ease conflict, read the BBC news articles, "Water find 'may end Darfur war.'"

What is Being Done to Improve Access to Water and Recognize the Human Right?

There are obstacles to overcome in fulfilling the human right to water. These obstacles include poor management of freshwater, lack of planning, unequal distribution of water and sanitation services and privatization of water services. In 2000, the WHO established that 1.1 billion people did not have access to an improved water supply that was able to provide each person with 20 or more litres of safe water each day. 80 percent of these 1.1 billion people live in rural areas. 2.4 billion people were without adequate sanitation and 2.3 billion suffer from waterborne diseases each year. Each day, between 14,000 and 30,000 people die from avoidable water-related diseases. Currently, one-third of the world's population lives in countries where there is moderate to severe water stress. By 2025, it is estimated that two thirds of the world's population will be living in areas experiencing water stress.

One of the goals of the Millennium Development is to ensure environmental sustainability. The target of this goal, in particular, is to halve the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation by the year 2015.

From 1990 to 2002, the number of people receiving improved water coverage in developing countries rose from 71 percent to 79 percent. Some regions saw great improvements, such as South Asia, where water coverage rose from 71 percent to 84 percent, and Sub-Saharan Africa, where water coverage rose from 49 percent to 58 percent. Other regions saw less improvement, such as North Africa, where water coverage rose from 88 percent to 90 percent. Rural areas have experienced the greatest improvement in water services, but these areas have started from a much lower base and still require a great amount of improvement.

Due to global population growth, 275,000 people need to gain access to water supplies each day until 2015, if the goal is to be met. The United Nations reports that, for this to happen, four things must happen:

1. Governments and countries need to recognize that water is a human right that must be accessible and affordable to all, including those who are too poor to pay.

2. Governments and countries need to develop national strategies that will improve water and sanitation services, as well as reduce poverty.

3. International aid in this sector must double.

4. A global action plan needs to be developed to emphasize the priority of providing adequate water and sanitation services to all.

How Does the Privatization of Water Fit into the Human Rights Issue?

According to the definition of water as a human right, governments are responsible for ensuring that everyone has access to safe drinking water. As well, human rights cannot be sold. That means that water should not be withheld, even when people cannot afford to pay. This right has been violated in a number of countries, where prepaid water meters are used. The picture to the right shows a water meter, which distributes water when a plastic card that has been purchased is inserted into the slot. The idea behind this form of water supply is that the water company does not have to cut off the water supply when people cannot pay, and water consumption is reduced.

However, there are several flaws to this rationale. First of all, the water companies say that people "self-disconnect" when they cannot afford to pay for the water; this is a weak attempt to avoid taking responsibility for denying the basic human rights of people. Secondly, water meters are prevalent in parts of Africa, such as Namibia, Swaziland and Tanzania, where water consumption is already extremely low. The cost of using a water meter can be up to ten times higher than piped water would be. Furthermore, when people cannot afford safe drinking water, they are forced to use contaminated water, which results in an increase in waterborne diseases. For example, when free, communal standpipes in one South African province, KwaZula Natal, were converted to water meters, many households were unable to get safe drinking water. As a result, between August 2000 and February 2002, there were 113,966 reported cases of cholera, 259 of whom died, just in this one province. In the previous 20 years, there had been only 78 deaths from cholera in the same region.

Even developed countries have not had good results when a company privatizes the water. In the 1980s, the British water system was privatized. In the first five years, 18,636 households had their water supply cut off because they could not afford the price of water, which had increased by more than 50 percent.

What is Canada's Stance on Drinking Water Rights?

Canada has voted against water as a human right on multiple occasions, including at the World Water Forum in 2000, in Kyoto in 2003, and in Mexico City in 2006. Of 53 countries, Canada held the single vote against water rights at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

The Canadian government believes that they have good reasons to vote against water as a human right, even though 97 percent of Canadians disagree with the federal government. The Canadian government has expressed several reasons for voting against water rights. While they agree that water is an important issue, the Canadian government feels that each country should be responsible for providing access to water.

The provincial governments are responsible for drinking water provisions, except for on military reserves, national parks, and in First Nations communities, which are under federal jurisdiction. First Nations communities tend to have extremely poor drinking water. In 2006, Sierra Legal published a report card of drinking water quality. While most provinces showed improvement in their drinking water, the federal government received the only failing grade, for their failure to ensure safe drinking water for First Nations, among other things. So, while Canada claims that they are voting NO because each country should take responsibility, they themselves are not taking responsibility.

The United Nations General Comment 15 states that the right to water is implied in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Canada believes that supporting this comment would force them to share Canadian waters with others. As well, the Canadian government expresses concern that, if they were to recognize water as a human right, the United States would be able to demand Canadian water under Human Rights Laws. This would be very unlikely to happen, as human rights claims must meet very strict criteria.

However, don't get the impression that Canada wants to protect our water sources for Canadians, now and in the future. While the government is against sharing water, they are considering selling it. And the price tag will be high. The Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) states that this will only widen the gap between rich and poor, because exported water will only be accessible to the wealthy.

So is the Government Denying the Human Right of Water to First Nations Communities?

In one word, yes. But let's go through the dimensions of the right to water that were listed above. First of all, people need enough water to meet their basic needs. The quantity of water is generally not a problem in First Nations communities. Secondly, the quality of water must be safe and free from contamination. The water quality in First Nations communities is comparable with the water in developing countries. First Nations communities report more than twice the number of cases of shigellosis as the overall Canadian rate. Health Canada estimates that nearly 30 percent of community water systems in First Nations communities are of concern, due to health and safety risks, and only 25 percent of water systems are running without problems. They also estimate that 16 percent of community wastewater systems are of concern, and only 40 percent are not experiencing problems. However, SDWF scientists predict that over 90 percent of First Nations communities cannot produce drinking water that meets Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines.

The third aspect of the right to water is accessibility. This means that water facilities must be in near proximity to the house. While 2,145 of 89,897 on-reserve houses do not have water service, water trucks generally provide water for these communities. Fourthly, water should be affordable, and this is not always the case in First Nations communities, especially when you consider that First Nations communities are paying more for poor quality water.

The last dimension of the right to water is accessibility for all, including the most vulnerable and marginalized people. In this case, water is accessible, but First Nations communities are often forced to pay more for poor quality water, which is a discriminatory action on the part of the federal government.

Let's also analyze the water situation in First Nations communities from the three levels of government involvement that are involved in a human right. First, the government should respect the right to water, and not deny access to anyone. In 2006, Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice announced some details regarding the plan for safe drinking water on reserves.

The plan involved developing federal water quality standards, and requiring drinking water treatment plants on reserves to meet the provincial or federal standards (whichever is higher) or risk losing funding. This could be considered equivalent to denying some reserves the right to safe drinking water, because many reserves do not have the funds required to maintain water treatment facilities that can produce drinking water on par with the guidelines.

The second level of government obligation is to protect the right to safe drinking water. In July 2006, a sewage spill occurred in the Albany River, in northern Ontario. A nearby First Nations community had been on a Boil Water Advisory since the spring, and in October 2006, after the spill, the Chief of Marten Falls First Nation brought the issue to the attention of the media, because the government was treating the sewage spill with very little urgency. Fortunately, after the issue gained public attention, the government addressed the problem, but there are many other First Nations communities that have been on Boil Water Advisories for many years. Another aspect of this level of duty is that the government should establish standards for water quality. Provincial regulations do not apply to reserves and, as of yet, the federal government has not established any standards for drinking water quality on reserves. There is speculation that this may be because the government does not want the responsibility of implementing them.

The third level of government involvement requires the government to fulfill the right to water, when necessary. While the federal government already allocates money to drinking water treatment on reserves, this duty may also require them to provide additional funding to provide a long-term solution, including building an effective water treatment plant and wastewater treatment system, training operators to run the facilities, and ensuring that First Nations communities have the funds that are necessary to be sustainable.

For more information about the drinking water concerns that most First Nations communities across Canada have, read Watered Down Excuse, According to one scientist, high cost is no excuse for lack of safe drinking water in First Nations communities, an article published in The Dominion about the drinking water at Saddle Lake Cree Nation.

The Safe Drinking Water Foundation has educational programs that can supplement the information found in this fact sheet. Operation Water Drop looks at the chemical contaminants that are found in water; it is designed for a science class. Operation Water Flow looks at how water is used, where it comes from and how much it costs; it has lessons that are designed for Social Studies, Math, Biology, Chemistry and Science classes. Operation Water Spirit presents a First Nations perspective of water and the surrounding issues; it is designed for Native Studies or Social Studies classes. Operation Water Health looks at common health issues surrounding drinking water in Canada and around the world and is designed for a Health, Science and Social Studies collaboration. Operation Water Pollution focuses on how water pollution occurs and how it is cleaned up and has been designed for a Science and Social Studies collaboration. To access more information on these and other educational activities, as well as additional fact sheets, visit the Safe Drinking Water Foundation website at www.safewater.org.

Did you know that at any given time there are over 1,000 Drinking Water Advisories in place across Canada? Please help us to continue working towards safe drinking water being a reality for all Canadians! Please chip in $5 or donate $20 or more and receive an Official Donation Receipt for Income Tax Purposes.

Tagged: human rights, right to water, access to water, water meter, Canada, Nairobi, Kenya, First Nations communities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Human Rights - Safe Drinking Water Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Under international human rights laws, water is protected as a human right. In the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, water is not explicitly mentioned

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Children's right to water today
Today, more than 885 million people worldwide are forced to drink water which is unsafe for drinking. More than 2.5 billion people, which is close to 42% of the world's population, do not receive water treatment services.
Water and children's health around the world

The situation

The lack of safe drinking water is a tragic reality for millions of children in developing countries. Their health and quality of life are seriously affected.

Each year, 1.8 million children under the age of five die because of illnesses related to unsafe water. One child dies every 20 minutes.

The most affected regions are subsaharian Africa and south-east Asia where 40% of the children must drink water which is not safe for consumption. 65% of them do not use proper toilets. More than one out of five people is obligated to defecate outside. This creates water and land pollution and leads to serious illnesses.

The impact on children's health

These children's health is at great risk because of water-related illnesses

* Every three minutes, one child dies of diarrhea-related illnesses.

* Tuberculosis, which was once considered obliterated, still exists. 120,000 children die of tuberculosis each year.

* 88 million children under fifteen get schistosomiasis each year. This is caused by parasitic worms which develop in stagnant water.

* Educational campaigns about hygiene could reduce the number of diarrhea-related illnesses by up to 45%!

* Access to safe drinking water could reduce the number of children's deaths by 50%!

The impact on children's education

The lack of drinking water and proper sanitation facilities have additional consequences; in some developing countries more than half of all primary schools do not have the facilities to provide drinking water. Two-thirds of schools are not equipped with sinks or toilets. Also, millions of children, especially girls, cannot go to school on a regular basis due to the lack of hygiene.

Each year, 443 million schooldays are missed because of insufficient facilities, illnesses and lack of hygiene. The school attendance rate is lowest in subsaharian Africa and south-east Asia. These places also have the highest number of uneducated girls because schools lack suitable girls-only washrooms.

[stextbox id="custom" caption="." collapsed="false" color="333333″ ccolor="ffffff" bcolor="336699″ bgcolor="ffffff" cbgcolor="336699″ image="https://www.humanium.org/en/wp-content/uploads/portail-fr/Related-topics.jpg"]

[stextbox id="custom" caption="." collapsed="true" color="333333″ ccolor="5c2f0d" bcolor="a3cb82″ bgcolor="ffffff" cbgcolor="a3cb82″ image="https://www.humanium.org/en/wp-content/uploads/portail-fr/Read-More.jpg"]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Right to Water around the World - Humanium

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Right to Water Around the World Children's right to water today Today, more than 885 million people worldwide are forced to drink water which is unsafe for drinking. More than 2.5 billion people, which is close to 42% of the world's population, do not receive water treatment services.

# data[].attributes.headline
Communities & water rights: How are they faring?

# data[].attributes.subject
Communities & water rights: How are they faring?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'Who owns what water?' remains a controversial question for rural communities across the world. During World Water Week, we should be searching for answers.

This week is World Water Week in Stockholm, the annual focal point for the globe's water issues. Several thousand experts are meeting to discuss water issues from sanitation to acute shortages facing particular regions. In this year's meeting, water tenure is receiving slight mention. Yet 'who owns what water?' remains controversial for thousands of rural communities who regard local waters as integral to their historical and present domains, and continue to govern these under customary rules. This includes coastal communities who traditionally hold foreshores, mangroves, and near-shore fishing domains, and inland communities depending upon groundwater, ponds, lakes, small rivers, and marshes for their livelihood.

The status of inland local waters is sometimes contentious for various reasons, but two factors - water ownership and water use rights - are at the root of the problem
WATER OWNERSHIP
In countries around the world, national water legislation provides that inland water is either the property of the state or a public resource held in trust by (often undemocratic) governments for their citizens. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, resource laws in 44 of 49 countries (90 percent) stipulate that water is a state or public asset and the laws in three other countries imply this. Two-thirds of sub-Saharan countries do not recognize any private ownership of water. Yet a deeper look at these laws shows that many define a public asset as ownership by the national community in common, seeking a more equitable playing field ( g. Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Lesotho, and Ivory Coast). However, in the process community rights may be jeopardized.

This African picture is reflected around the world; 57 of 67 water laws (85 percent) establish water as the property the state. Among the 10 water laws which do not make such claims, Aborigines in Australia and Sami in Finland and Norway are beneficiaries. In other cases a legal distinction is drawn between private and public waters sometimes with communities in mind. For example, in Nicaragua, communal property is legally defined as including waters traditionally belonging to the community.

A hint that the issue of water tenure is changing is indicated in the consistency with which new water laws are moving towards nationalized ownership. Again, Africa provides an example. Twenty-two of 26 (85 percent) water laws examined are not older than 1990, twelve enacted since 2000. Several older water laws provide more clearly for water to be attached to land rights ( e.g. Botswana, Malawi, and The Gambia). It is also noticeable that national Constitutions in Africa are less strident than water laws in declaring all waters to be national, state or un-ownable property. In fact, only 13 of 55 Constitutions in force today do so. While many governments have focused on creating water user associations, few have adequately addressed community-level water tenure.
EXPLORE: discover the WRI's interactive map of water rights here.
Yet it is widely accepted that secure water tenure is a prerequisite to sound community management of local water resources. Laws in only 38 of 93 countries around the world (41 percent) explicitly recognize that indigenous and community property includes rights to local water sources on the land. Two thirds are African laws, suggesting African policy and lawmakers may be paying more attention to this issue than governments in other parts of the world. Elsewhere, the lands of Indigenous Peoples are often also beneficiaries. More generally, the link between secure local water tenure, land tenure, livelihood, and resource sustainability is still not being sufficiently made. No wonder many communities are worried. They may be gaining land rights but often waters on their land are excluded.
WATER USE RIGHTS
While water is predominantly a state or public resource, the laws in most countries around the world recognize and provide its citizens water use rights. In sub-Saharan Africa, the laws in half the countries recognize traditional or customary use rights to water. Most laws allow rural citizens and communities to use water for domestic or subsistence purposes without specific government authorization or payment of a fee. There are often, however, limitations, restrictions, or other conditions that apply to the exercise of these "free" water use rights with governments having the authority to revoke them for non-compliance.

Seventy-five percent of the world's poor people live in rural areas, mostly in agrarian - land and natural resource dependent - economies. A better understanding of water ownership, water use rights, and how they link to land rights is fundamental to the livelihoods and welfare of 2-3 billion rural people. This in turn has connections to the stability of local resources themselves - and hence to climate change.

This year, the theme of World Water Week is Water for Sustainable Growth. Perhaps next year, attention can shift to water rights. The pro-poor orientation of the Sustainable Development Goals suggests we should be concerned.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Communities & water rights: How are they faring?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This week is World Water Week in Stockholm, the annual focal point for the globe's water issues. Several thousand experts are meeting to discuss water issues from sanitation to acute shortages facing particular regions. In this year's meeting, water tenure is receiving slight mention. Yet 'who owns what water?'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the United States there are primarily two methods of apportioning the use of water by individuals or organizations (for the purposes of agriculture, farming, irrigation):

Riparian (land based)

Prior Appropriation (use base)

Riparian Doctrine

The Riparian Doctrine links the ownership of lands adjacent to a source of water (typically a river or stream) and the use of the water. Only those landowners who's property forms the banks of the water have a right to make reasonable use of the water as it flows through / over their property.

In the even that the waters are not sufficient to satisfy the usage demands of all users, then the water is apportioned in proportion of the frontage that a landowner has along the water source.

Riparian apportionment is primarily used in the eastern part of the United States where surface waters are more plentiful. In the central / western parts of the United States, the Prior Appropriation approach is used.

Doctrine of Prior Appropriation

The Prior Appropriation System (also know as the Colorado Doctrine) can be simplified to "first in time, first in right". In practice this means that the first person to withdraw water and apply that water to beneficial use has the first right to use the water within a particular water system. They become "senior" in their rights to the water. The second person to do so becomes the second most senior water rights holder and so on. Based upon seniority, each individual water right must be fulfilled before the next water right can be fulfilled.

Water rights under the Prior Appropriation System are separate property rights and can be sold separately from the land.

Images: Resource Concepts
Sources: Wikipedia: Riparian Water Rights, Ley, T., Stroud, B., et al, Colorado Experience with Discharge Measurements at Parshall Flumes and Assessment of Parshall Flume Performance Colorado Divison of Water Resources - Department of Natural Resources,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the United States there are primarily two methods of apportioning the use of water by individuals or organizations (for the purposes of agriculture, farming, irrigation): Riparian (land based) Prior Appropriation (use base) The Riparian Doctrine links the ownership of lands adjacent to a source of water (typically a river or stream) and the use of the water.

# data[].attributes.headline
History of Immigration in the US for Dummies

# data[].attributes.subject
History of Immigration in the US for Dummies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of Immigration in the US for Dummies

# data[].attributes.headline
Growth, Cities, and Immigration: Crash Course US History #25

# data[].attributes.subject
Growth, Cities, and Immigration: Crash Course US History #25

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Growth, Cities, and Immigration: Crash Course US History #25

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Through the eyes of a child immigrant | Erik Gomez | TEDxPSU

# data[].attributes.headline
Between Borders: American Migrant Crisis | Times Documentaries 

# data[].attributes.subject
Between Borders: American Migrant Crisis | Times Documentaries 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Between Borders: American Migrant Crisis | Times Documentaries | The New York Times

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the Government Allow Immigrants Who Are Here Illegally to Become US Citizens? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the Government Allow Immigrants Who Are Here Illegally to Become US Citizens? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Statistics do not tell the story of immigration. People do. Since its inception, this nation has been continually infused with the energy of newcomers. Yet their assimilation has seldom been smooth. The challenges we face today are not new. Only the stories are.

IMPORTANT NOTICE
If you need legal advice on immigration law, please contact an attorney.

My grandparents were refugees at the time of partition in India from, what is now, Pakistan to present India. They worked long and hard days doing blue-collar jobs so that my parents would have a better chance at life. My parents chose to honor their sacrifices by seeking a better life in the United States. We came to this country because my mother had a fellowship. We landed with just over $800 in NYC. My father's MBA was not accredited in the United States so eventually he went back to school to repeat his degree. They recognized that the caste system in the US is based on where you go to school so they sent my sister and I to the best high schools and then the best colleges. I am now in law school working to make sure our systems provide everyone with a fair shot at success and my sister is teaching English helping the next generation learn empathy. We honor the sacrifices of our family by trying to make the world a better place. We believe that the promise of America can be a reality for all of us. We are Americans.
Aditi
New York, NY

My father was a bracero. He suffered a lot. He was far from his family in Mexico but convinced a good religious man to build a home for his family and brought his family home to the United States. Years later, my mother cleaned others people's homes and ironed other people's clothes: neighbors' homes and clothes, in a middle class neighborhood in a home my father purchased. I stand proud every day because of them. I am proud to be an immigrant.
Graciela
Los Angeles

After my family got a visa in Yemen, I was so glad that I would be going to the USA. All my family were happy for us but most of them were crying at the time we left. We left Yemen during the beginning of the revolution to change the president. Since then people are suffering from lack of food resources. Each year it gets worse. My father told us that we would not stay for a long time in NYC but since the war started in Yemen it's not safe anymore. We couldn't go back so we decided to stay. So for two years we have been hoping that Yemen will get better and it will be safe so we can go back and see my family after five years of being expatriates.
Basam

My dad was born in 1968 in Saigon, Vietnam during the Vietnam War. At that time grandpa was a soldier fighting for the South in the Vietnam War. My dad was 7 at the time when my grandfather was taken to a camp that was owned by the communists and was kept as a prisoner of war. He returned 10 years after when my dad was 17 years old and my dad's family opened up a salon. In 1993, when my dad was 24 years old, my dad and his whole family received airplane tickets to America to escape the communist takeover in Vietnam. My dad and his family chose to settle in California because he heard the weather was nice and there was a lot of job opportunities in San Jose. When my dad first arrived in America. They lived in an apartment in Blossom Hill. His first job was in electronic assembling. He says getting the job was easy since he had a friend who helped him. He wanted to learn the English language because he says living in America without knowing most of the words was difficult so he went to West Valley College for two years to learn English. Everyone has their own immigrant story.
Kelly
CA

I'm lucky. I'm 16, live in a small town and I am a daughter of an immigrant. Growing in a small town, when 96 percent of the population is white is tough. You turn white. Sure, the color of my skin will never be the color of a piece of printer paper but inside it feels like I'm all white. I guess the word "anchor baby" defines me.... sort of. I'm the president of debate club, where we talk about bills, current news topics, and political nominees. The hardest topic... Is immigration reform. People are so uninformed.. "Yes I believe we should deport all undocumented immigrants here, and they should get in line with all the other people to get their papers... LEGALLY" I find that easier said than done. I haven't seen my father since I was 8 and only spoken to him on the telephone. He was deported in 2009. The last day I saw him was in a train station... And I had no idea why I was saying good bye... and why everyone was crying. When my friends came over and asked where my father was I said he was "working". Every year on my birthday he calls me and I try hard not to cry because I know it's another year of him not being able to see me grow. My mother is a single mom. Terrified of being deported. Just a couple weeks ago she was caught. She was driving to work when a police officer pulled her over because she wasn't wearing her seat belt. For anyone else it's just a ticket. For a single mother that is illegal it's "I have to go to court, I have to show identification... They will find out I am illegal.. I will be deported... I have to call my lawyer... Who will take care of my daughters? " I hate seeing my mother in constant fear. I hate hearing family members and friends calling us to be careful because in Hudson ICE was seen deporting families. She's scared. I'm scared. We're all scared. Living the American dream shouldn't consist of being scared every second of the day.
E.G.
Albany, New York

I came to the United States as a child. My dad is a resident alien but could never fix my situation.
Since I have been here I've formed a family of my own. I don't know anything about Mexico because I was raised here and I find myself scared to be deported to a place that I do not know.
Gonzalo
South Bay, Florida

My parents moved to America when I was a year old and my sister was 2 1/2. I have 2 younger siblings who are born in America. Sometimes I hate how unknowingly privileged they are. They get free doctor and dentist visits while I haven't been to the doctor since I was 8 years old. I did not know about immigration until recently and I cried for days. My father, mother, sister, and I all have our passports. I am now 16 years old and counselors are telling me to start looking for college. My sister is a senior and she recently found out that we cannot apply for FAFSA. I don't know how I'm going to pay for college and I want to be an engineer. I don't even have my workers permit and it sucks to see everyone else getting jobs and licenses when I'm just stuck. I feel so helpless and sometimes I wonder why my parents even decided to come here. There is nothing for us here.
A Dreamless Child
Indiana

I came to the U.S. When I was 1 year old along with my 2 older brothers and my mom. My dad was working in the U.S. at the time so he never really had the chance to see me when I was born. My parents have had to go through so much just us. I admire them so much. They came to America seeking a future. I never went hungry. We came here with a tourist visa. I am 17 years old now and I want to travel the world but sadly I can't. There are so many risk factors that come with being an immigrant but my parents always managed to cope with them.
Maria
New Jersey

I never knew being illegal holds you back from many things you can do here in the states. I've been illegal all my life but found out when I was 15. I came to the United States when I was 5. I lived the life of a normal kid with school and friends and just being a kid. When I got older I couldn't get a normal job or even go to school or even get my first car. It is hard and it keeps getting harder for some reason. I'm 24 and don't really know where to turn to.
Jose
Orlando FL

I went to N.Y. in 2004 where I met my child's father. I stayed 90 days, came home then went back and fell pregnant in August 2005. I left of my own accord went back twice in 2006 then again in 2007. When I went to the US last month with my 9yr old whose father is an American citizen I was denied entry on the grounds of an overstay in the past. My child was seeing her father on father's day and meeting her brothers and great grandma. I am absolutely disgusted as to what they put my child through. Border control said get a visa you'll be back in 5 days. I don't know who to speak to what to do. The US consulate won't answer calls. I feel when you find yourself in a situation like this you need to speak to a human being not an automated service. I'm so tired been trying to fix this to no avail. The money for flights was a waste of £1000. I think it's disgusting.
Vicky
Scotland

I came to the States for the first time a couple days after I turned 18. I wanted to visit my uncle who lived in Seattle and thought I might get a bit lucky so then I could get a job and live there. I arrived legally on a tourist visa and I applied for an asylum 3 months after that. I really hoped I could get through the process and at the end I would be granted a US citizenship. I had a working permit which I had to renew annually and I never missed paying taxes. I saved up some money and I took classes from a top music college in Boston, MA but I couldn't graduate due to my financial situation. FAFSA couldn't approve my application at that time so I needed to reach into my own pocket to pay my tuition. I worked at a local restaurant 60-70 hours a week and I started my music career in 2012. I was a part of a band based in Seattle that was quite popular at that time and we got to play for famous comedians, big casinos and many others. They paid me really well and the manager of the band is just a great model of how America should be like. He would let me play as much as the others do without any exceptions. I paid my taxes as a sub-contractor of the band and I didn't mind. I wanted thank America for giving me chances! I would also like to ask why you would kick me out when my asylum case had been denied. Now I'm living in Asia not knowing what else to do other that teaching ESL because I actually speak English. I hope to see you again soon, America. I really miss you and all my relatives that are still there. Someday we'll see each other again.
No name given
Indonesia

I have been apart from my wife and kids for 4 years now. I got a letter from NVC long time ago says that my visa was approved but they asked for someone to sponsor me. Sometime I ask myself is the US of America is still on planet earth. If I start walking it's not going to take all this time to see my wife and my son for the first time. Maybe it is because my name is Mohamed & I am Muslim. If that the problem I am ready to change my name & religion if that will help me to see my family. I always imagine that moment of us together and that moment of me seeing my son for the first time. I really feel powerless that I just can't do anything about this and I really hate myself about how powerless I am.
Mohamed
Kasserine, Tunisia-North Africa

I am 16 years old. My mother and I are both from Guatemala. My mother was forced to have sexual intercourse when she was 14. She got kicked out and struggled trying to find a place to sleep. My father heard about it and didn't care. His sister gave her a place to sleep but the problem was that the place was really little and filled with bugs. She had to sleep with those bugs everyday .She was 15 with a new born. My father at the time was having dreams about me. He wanted my mom and I to come to the United States .I don't know why he didn't go to a lawyer and try to work things out. He is a citizen, and yet he decided to bring us illegally. I was five years old at the time .I remember the day. My mother just told me to be quiet if I wanted to see my father. I remember holding my breath for some time waiting for the car to cross. It was the most sad and yet happy day of my life. I think my mom just wanted a better future for me. She wasn't making much and she knew my dad would help out. I don't really remember the day i saw my dad for the first time, but the years with him were amazing. Everything changed when he left back to Guatemala and wanted us to go back. My mom saw how I was doing in school and how we didn't suffer like we did back home. She didn't want to go back and she didn't. She later on went to Chicago. Her sister let her stay with her, and it was awful. My aunt was really selfish and mean. My mom didn't like that at all. We later on moved to California and she met a guy. It was the worst five years of my life. The guy didn't treat her the way my dad did. She was scared and worried for her life, and so was i. I don't want to go more into that. We recently moved out. I think now that she is on her own, she is working hard and being the best mom. After all this my main focus is just doing well in school and going to college. It is my main goal to finish college and look and my mom and thank her for staying and making my dreams come true of being someone in life.
anonymous
San Bernardino California

I came to this country in May, 2001 on H-1B visa and my family members (wife and my 2 daughters) joined me 2 months later. My elder daughter, was almost 10 years and 5 months old at the time of her arrival to USA. The labor Department approved my Application for Employment in 2005. I filed my papers for I140 in 2006, and the approval was given in 2008. I could not file for my Permanent Resident Status (I-485 form) as the priority date for India at that time was June 2001. Unfortunately, we received the letter on October 17th, 2015 regarding denial of the Green Card for my elder daughter because her age was over 21 years. Considering the above situation, the USCIS gives us no choice but to send my elder daughter back to India. She grew up in America and asking one daughter to be separated from her whole family just because she is older than 21 is disheartening. Our family has always believed in going by the law and have put all our efforts forward in the last 15 years to stay legal in this country. Currently, illegal immigrant children who were educated in America from a young age have rights to work and receive financial aid. Why is it that a family who has worked hard to stay legal and always follow the law is being punished for doing things the right way?
Divya
California

You know sometimes it can get hard not having papers. I was brought to the U.S. at the age 3 because my mom saw a better future for me there. We lived in my uncle's house with his family which are legal. My mom worked really hard for me to have everything I needed. However she fell in love with my step-dad and so we moved together as a family with his daughter and two sons. At first he treated me well but then became so fake to me. I thought that I would actually have someone to care for me and call him my dad. I'm 13 and this immigration stuff gets to me every day. I just want to go back home with my real family. (I'm an only child if you were wondering)
Guadalupe
Michigan

My father is 52 years old now. He entered The US at the age of 16 with a 3rd grade education. He has always been a hard worker and had been trying to obtain residency since I could remember. He was deported 4 years ago. My younger brothers were 2 and 16 at the time and I was 20. My brother got a job to help pay bills along with me and my older sister. My 2 year old brother is going to be 7 now and barely even knows who our dad is. I have helped raise him and took both of my brothers under my wing. I graduated from a technical college the year he was deported and now I am back in college and plan to obtain a degree in teaching. My father didn't raise criminals, he set examples of what hard work can accomplish. We never received government help and he always paid his taxes. So my question is why not look further into his history here rather than just assume anybody here "illegally," is in fact not worthy of living and thriving in this unjust but beautiful country.
Richard
Dallas, TX

I came in the US 1988 at 12 and now today at 37. I'm still dealing with being an immigrant after being married with 4 kids. I have had lawyers take my money and scam me over and over. My recent lawyer was indicted for scam. I lost my job 5 weeks ago because my lawyer was arrested and he kept all my documents to return to work. I have done all I can the legal way to obtain a green card but I feel like the system has failed me. I have lived in a prison for 25 years and I have committed no crime. My daughter will be 17 soon and when I started this journey I was pregnant with her.
Denise
No location given

I came here in 2009 by myself from Iraq. I was 20 years old then. Now I'm 25 years old and pretty soon will become a citizen. I don't have family support or any kind of support. It was tough at times but quiet seas don't make good sailors. Life is going pretty well. I have a lot of experience in sales and customer service. I can work in any field I wish. I'm working full time and going to school part time. I made a really good plan for my future. I believe that my future is set.
Bashar
No location given

My father was heading to work when the immigration was waiting for him. They had a warrant for him. They took him even though he has been living here for 40+ years. Now he can't see his newborn grandson, nor me or my brother including my little sister. My parents are divorced and who is she supposed to give her advice, give her that comfort that my father did? He paid all of his taxes, did everything by the book. I just can't believe this is what we call justice in America. This isn't the land of the free anymore. My father is my role model he raised me and my older brother by himself. I just can't believe how they can do this to an innocent man. He's been in the immigration holding facilities for a year now!
Alejandro
Pasadena, Texas

I went school in Canada and moved to Texas in 2010. At that time I was thinking it will be hard to settle in because of my race. However this was not the case. Within 3 months I got my first job and from there on I am just progressing. My family moved here in 2012. I would just like to thank the US for giving me an opportunity to pursue my dreams. Of course all countries have pros and cons but I still believe US is the land of opportunities. It has all the tools and resources you need to succeed. You don't need to be rich to enjoy all the privileges this country has to offer. You can still live a beautiful life. People are so helpful here. You get the respect you deserve. I was not born here but I wish I did.
Thank you US for everything.
Texas

I was brought to the U.S illegally when I was 3 years of age. My father came to this country first before he brought my mother and I. My father and mother still continue to work hard every day to give me and my two younger brothers the absolute best. I thank my father every day for bringing us to this blessed and beautiful country and giving us a better quality of life. Throughout my life I never thought it would be such a big deal being illegal until I got to high school and staring applying for my licenses or college scholarships. Obviously I was denied for not having a social security number. Later on Mr. President Obama gave us an opportunity named deferred action and it has opened to many doors for me! I'm truly blessed. I was able to obtain my driver licenses and continue school. Honestly my life has completely changed.
Allison
North Carolina

I am from Somalia, endless battles forced me out of Somalia in March 11, 2011. I arrived Kenya and registered with the UNHCR as a refugee, many times i applied for a resettlement to a third country, due to the high number of Somali refugee the UNHCR was dealing with, i gave up and felt hopeless. One day in 2012 i applied for the diversity green card visa lottery, i was accepted, by 2014 i recieved my visa. I am now living and working in Portland, Maine. I am saving some money to go to college in the fall of this year, 2015.

Abdi
Portland, Maine

I was only a few months old when I was brought in the U.S with my mother my father and my big brother. I was born in Mexico DF on January 31. My mom thought it would be better to build a better life in the other side so we could have a better future. I am 20 years old now I've been waiting to get my papers for too long. I finished high school and got my diploma to be able to go to college. But I won't be able without my papers. Every day I cry because I can't help my mom with rent anymore. I don't work anymore. I want my mom to be proud of me but how can I if I'm not from here and they won't accept us. My mom was once deported when I was 10 years old. I found out the next day because she had not come home. I got a phone call from Mexico and she told me she wasn't going to come back until 3 to 4 month. Never in my entire life have I felt so mad, so mad because I was left without a mother for 3 month. After that I've been scared of cops because I don't remember anything from Mexico because I've been living in Houston for my entire life. I want to be able to enjoy my life and learn new stuff and travel, something I can't do.
Ivonne
Houston, TX

I met my husband a Mexican national in 2007 after having our daughter. We wanted to "fix" his status as he was illegal. He left the states in 2011 and was given a 10 year bar from reentering the US with no waiver. Living a nightmare of trying to keep our marriage together our kids happy and the inflow of money to the family. We will not be allowed to live "normal" until 2021. Immigration has robbed me of my children's daily growth and amazing first memories as I travel between Mexico and San Diego weekly. I simply want to see and hold my children daily and have the daily support of my amazing husband. Immigration is such a cold inhumane process... It's tearing families apart when it should be uniting them.
Stephanie
San Diego

My dad was deported when I was 16 years old. I know he is somewhere in the Dominican Republic, if he is still alive. I try not to think about it too much because there are so many questions and nobody to answer them. I'm now 22 years old and sometimes, I wonder where he is and what he is doing. I know that he would be proud of me getting my bachelor's degree and becoming a teacher and coach. Even though I don't have a good relationship with my mother and only lived with my father for a few years, I thank them wholeheartedly for their sacrifices. They had no idea where I would be at 22, but it was thanks to them that I was born and raised in a place with unlimited opportunities.
Emilia
Lawrence, MA

For as long as I can remember, I knew that my parents were undocumented. Growing up in New York City, so many of the people around me were undocumented I didn't really know what it meant. But, as I got older, I started to figure it out. My parents would tell my siblings that we wouldn't be able to fly to see our cousins in Florida or even take a bus to another state because they didn't have a state-issued ID. I have always feared my parents getting stopped by the authorities and then getting deported. When I left for Scripps College in August all the way in California (I was born and raised in NYC), my parents couldn't even accompany me into the airport. My mom was terrified of going into the terminal for fear that someone would ask her for documentation. I went alone. In November, when I heard President Obama issue an executive order that would help about 5 million undocumented people living in the United States come out of the shadows, I felt elated.
Henna
California

I came into this Country when I was 2 years of age, I am now 19 about to turn 20. Like everybody, my parents came into this country to seek for a better life and to provide me with a better quality of education and to make sure I had everything I could possibly need. The three of us came into this country illegally, they came here without knowing anybody or without speaking or understanding the English language. Since day one they've worked very hard every day to build our empire that we have now. I'm beyond blessed and grateful because every day we are living the American dream. All through out these years it has definitely not been easy but definitely worth it. I now have my SS thanks to DACA but I'm still hoping to have the opportunity to go back to my homeland and have the blessing to see my grandparents at least one more time. Even though I will never get 15-16 years back I pray every day to god to give me the chance to be able to see them someday because even though I have everything now I have an empty place in my heart of not being able to hug them or telling them how much they mean to me.
Allison
California
Like many others I came to the U.S at a young age, 6. My parents took me and my two sisters 9 and 1 at the time from Brazil. 15 years later we all got our green cards. In 2014, I was 22 years of age and met a beautiful girl. She was also an immigrant from Brazil. She and her family were here on a tourist visa and switched to the application of a religious visa. Her dad is a pastor. During the 8 months we dated, things were moving great until they were denied the religious visa and had to go back to Brazil. I proposed to her the day before she left in belief, I with a green card can legalize her. We were going to get married in 2016, but in March 2015 our lives changed. She still had a valid tourist visa, she was coming to celebrate our 1 year anniversary of the day we started dating. Coming from Brazil to the U.S. she was stopped at the airport for questioning. The officers asked her about her stay in the U.S, she admitted to having worked in the U.S. for a couple of months on a part-time job. She did not have employment authorization to have gotten the job. She was sent back that day to Brazil. I didn't get to see her and remember that as one of the worst days of my life. Now she can't visit me as her visa is cancelled. I went and got married July 2015. With the stain on her name, we were advised to wait for my citizenship before trying to legalize her. It will take 2 years for me to be eligible to be a citizen. I hope they will forgive her and let her live with me. I will continue to work and visit her periodically during these two years to build a future for us here in the U.S. It won't be easy but we are faithful things will work out and we can be together in the U.S. again.
Doug
Florida

My parents came here from Europe when I was just 3 years old. They haven't been back since and haven't seen their families in almost 20 years. It's been a very tough life for them and I almost wish they never came here. They have jobs they hate, no social life, and I have watched them grow to hate each other because of all these factors. I wish desperately there was some way to get them back home and to make them happy but there's not much I can do. Their mental energy is almost completely gone. I love them to death but can't handle seeing them so sad.
Ella
Colorado

I'm 22 years old and currently study Electrical Engineering. I was 8 years old when my parents decided to go to the Unites States. We lived there for almost ten years. Which means I lived my entire childhood there. Now we're living in Chile. I really feel like I don't belong here. It has been really depressing for me and my family. I have two younger brothers who were born in the US. I didn't get the chance to get my citizenship but I really miss the US and am struggling to leran Spanish and missing the life i had in New York. All my friends are over there and I feel more American than Chilean and hope one day I can go back to where I think I belong.
Bastian
Valparais, Chile

I am an American by heart, soul and hard work. I love my country but they apparently do not love. I moved to the US in 1984 with my girlfriend at that time. She had a GREEN CARD and was legal. I was a Canadian citizen. We married in the US and she started to work. In those times, I could work illegally easily until we had arranged for my legal status. My wife came home one day and said that she had my SSN that she had been working on for some time. I had no idea how the process worked (sticking my head in the ground a little of course) and utilized that SSN for the next 24 years while I worked, built a company, employed people, did year of volunteer work, paid all of my personal and corporate taxes fully (which for many years where substantial as I made a very good living). As a test to the reality of the SSN, I received 2 NASD licenses which required finger prints, FBI back ground, etc. to make sure I am who I say I am. I had no illegal activities and had renewed my driver's license a number of times without a problem. I was even audited twice. Then, when getting divorced I find out that it is NOT a good number. The person that really does have that SSN is alive and will receive the very handsome benefit of the taxes that I paid all those years. Now Canada, the country I was born in, says I do not have a very long history of work and very little contribution to my CPP so I will receive almost nothing in retirement. Having spent all my funds in my earlier years on my nieces and nephews to get them through school and university, I am up the creek without a paddle.
Warren
Canada

Both my parents came to the U.S illegally. After working in the U.S for over 20 years and paying taxes (even though they can never benefit from social security) they still cannot catch a break. My parents grew up poor in Mexico and both had to drop out of school to work to support their families. So before you judge, know that in Mexico it is a vicious cycle of not having an education because you don't have money and not having money because you don't have an education.
Israel
Portland, Oregon

My name is Vanessa and am an American citizen. I have a twin Samantha and we both are 16 years old and living with our grandparents. My mom and my other 2 sisters (also American citizens) live in Mexico with my Dad because he is deported and cannot come back. In 2005 they deported him and punished him for 10 years. On July 2015 he went to the Juarez Consulate and they denied his case. Since I was 6 years old I have been going to Mexico and coming to the US. I am a junior at Avenal High School. I get straight A's at school and life is hard without my family. My only dream since I was 6 is to have my Daddy here with me. Is it really much to ask for?
Vanessa
Avenal, CA

I immigrated to the Bronx, NY, in December 1984 when I was only fourteen years old after waiting 11 long years for my father to send for us. The wait was long but it was worth it. I come from a family of five children, I'm #4. I could not imagine life anywhere else. My home country (Dominican Republic) although beautiful, is corrupt and lacks education and job opportunities. I can honestly say that I have lived the American Drea. I took every opportunity available to me and have been able to experience a great education, have lived well and have benefited from all the work of all of those who came before me, including my father with his 2nd grade education, a hard worker who taught me the values of hard work and education. I am proud to be an American and to enjoy the freedom and wealth this country has to offer. God bless America.
Martha D.
West Palm Beach, FL

My mom brought me here along with my older sister. My mom was raped and forced to be with the guy that raped her. She did not get any counseling, left for the U.S and brought that same mindset. I have more siblings now. My oldest sister suffered from my mom's mindset of being abused. Our step dad forced himself on her. He left with three daughters and a son that were his. My mom has brought home a new dad. I think she doesn't realize how much it affects us.
Karen
Georgia

My father arrived illegally in New York about 18 years ago with his younger brother. My father worked hard upon arrival. He took jobs in New Jersey and New York City delivering packages. He then met my mother-disabled and born with only one arm-and fell in love. They had me and my sister only a year apart and started a family. Deportation was feared among my parents especially after so many tries with countless lawyers. How could my father leave his wife with one arm and two underage daughters alone?
Bianca
New York

I was born in Guadalajara Mexico. My parents came to the USA when I was 8 years old. I'm now 36 years old and unemployed. Being undocumented has made life so difficult. I became pregnant with twins at age 16 my kids are now 19 and my youngest 13. I have been living in constant fear of deportation and not been able to obtain stability and provide for my younger daughter. I feel like everyone around me is moving up in life and I'm stuck. I literally cry every day because of my immigration status, all my family is here legally except me. I want to do so much with my life but it seems impossible. I stay optimistic but it doesn't change the fact that I'm undocumented. Life is just so unfair.
Jessica
San Diego CA

I'm about to be 16. My dad has been trying to get his papers since I was born. They've gone to lawyers in New Orleans but all they do is say wait and to pay money when they don't do anything for us. At one point my dad was able to get his license but they never let him renew it. He's been working hard since I was born. We have a new house that we built. We can't buy a four wheeler or a truck since he doesn't have a license. He has DUI's from like 02-03 and that's it. I just want to get his papers for him so that I don't lose him. He deserves his papers being a hard worker and has done nothing wrong in his life.
Brian
Louisiana

South Koreans call United States Mee-Gook, which means "beautiful nation". America, the beautiful land of opportunity, is how I always envisioned my journey. I applied for jobs thinking I have 12 months to find a sponsorship. After several interviews, I realized that getting a job with H-1B sponsorship looming over my head is extremely difficult. Here is why: I'm a recent graduate from undergraduate with math degree, this severely limits my job options because USCIS determines what jobs math majors are allowed to work for H-1B visa through an occupational outlook handbook.
Charlie
Richmond, Virginia

My parents had left me at the age of 2 back in Mexico with my grandparents while they came to the U.S. They sent for me at the age of 4 and that is when I crossed the border with my aunt. It was hard at first but I got used to being here. I am now 18 years old and thankful that I was able to qualify for the DACA. With DACA I have been able to do so much. Thankfully I now have 2 jobs and I am in school. Although I am undocumented, I do not give up my hopes and dreams of a better life for my family. Although, it is difficult I was able to enroll into college and I am about to be done with my first semester. Hopefully I can continue my studies later on. As much as I would like to go visit my family in Mexico, I can't. That upsets me every day but I keep going strong for them. This isn't a sad story, this is just to let everyone know there is hope and to fight for what they want! Being undocumented shouldn't stop us, WE CAN DO IT! We just have to believe.
Wendy
New York

I am 19 years old and lived in the USA for 10 years of my life. I was deported alongside my mother and sister 5 years ago. My life has never been the same. When you realize how much your life is going to change in such a short period of time, you can only miss and mourn about the past, because that's what it is and will be. The past. There's not a day in my life, even though I don't necessarily want to, that I don't say to myself "what if I was still there...". Depression, came to me at a young age. Nostalgia was more than just a word at the age of 13. It is hard coping with a loss of what could've been a lifetime. I am doing my best to overcome reality and move along but all I seem to want is an opportunity to go back. I have no idea how or even if I can but it's a dream I wish came true soon enough.
Juan David
North Bergen, New Jersey

I was deported after being legally in the USA for over fifty years and receiving social security. They took my S.S. away. I am 69 years old and had not visited my country in all that time. My sons are all U.S. Citizens and my mother too. I do not know anyone in my country. It's been a nightmare. I sas hoping the plane would crash. That's how depressed I felt. I think it was an injustice to take my only source of income. I thought this was a just country.
Luis Eugenio
Dominican Republic

I came to the US on the Iraqi Young Leaders Exchange Program. I have been here since July, 23, 2014 and my visa was for 1 month. Right in the middle of the fun I was having around the US with 35 Iraqi students and 10 Americans, my family called me and told me that they have left home and they are refugees. Now my village was taken over by ISIS and they are killing people for their religious beliefs and thousands of the young girls are now taken as sex slaves. So I applied for asylum in US before my visa expired and I did my interview 2 months ago. Now I'm just waiting for the letter to come and if they say yes then I'm safe here. If not then I might have to go back and I could be killed there.
Azswan
Portland, OR

I came to United States at the age of 14 from Uzbekistan. The decision was my mother's; she felt like we needed a better life after my father died from lymphatic cancer. It was tough at first, but all I cared about is that I'm here now. I knew I had no future in Uzbekistan due to extreme corruption and broken education for which you can pay through. I am 17 now, on my way to college. Although current circumstances aren't as I'd want them to be, I will change that. After all, this is the land of opportunities.
Umar
Los Angeles

I was brought here when I was 2 years old. My dad came to New York a few years before but left my mom pregnant. Sadly, he couldn't see me when I was a baby due to him being illegal. He sent for us when I was 2 1/2 years old. I crossed the border with my mom and granddad and my aunt. Back then it was easier than it is now. My mom told me she was lucky that I was a quiet baby so we had no trouble. When we came to new York I lived in my uncle's house (who is a citizen) and I moved to new jersey 3 months later. I'm 15 now and I still get really upset because I want to be legal here. I want to help my parents out and get a good job and buy them their own house, but sadly I can't. I want to study cosmetology or psychology but me being illegal I can't.
Maria
New York

I went school in Canada and moved to Texas in 2010. At that time I was thinking it will be hard to settle in because of my race. However this was not the case. Within 3 months I got my first job and from there on I am just progressing. My family moved here in 2012. I would just like to thank the US for giving me an opportunity to pursue my dreams. Of course all countries have pros and cons but I still believe US is the land of opportunities. It has all the tools and resources you need to succeed. You don't need to be rich to enjoy all the privileges this country has to offer. You can still live a beautiful life. People are so helpful here. You get the respect you deserve. I was not born here but I wish I did.
Thank you US for everything.
Texas

My father was heading to work when the immigration was waiting for him. They had a warrant for him. They took him even though he has been living here for 40+ years. Now he can't see his newborn grandson, nor me or my brother including my little sister. My parents are divorced and who is she supposed to give her advice, give her that comfort that my father did. He paid all of his taxes and did everything by the books. I just can't believe this is what we call justice in America. This isn't the land of the free anymore. My father is my role model. He raised me and my older brother by himself. I just can't believe how they can do this to an innocent man. He's been in the immigration holding facilities for a year now!
Alejandro
Pasadena, TX

I came here in 2009 and immigrated by myself from Iraq. I was 20 years old then. Now I'm 25 years old and pretty soon will become a citizen. Don't have family support or any kind of support. It was tough at times but quiet seas don't make good sailors. Life is going pretty well. I have a lot of experience in sales and customer service. I can work in any field I wish for. I'm working full time and going to school part time. I made a really good plan for my future. I believe that my future is set.
Bashar
No location given

I came to the United States when I was only 4 years old. I have 3 siblings, 2 of them are apart of the dream act , they have their ss and worker permit for a limited time. My parents are illegal immigrants, but my father has his drivers license which expires 2017 and we don't know what is gonna happen after that. It was a miracle how he got his license back in 2007. My parents work as janitors because they can't get better jobs because of their status. I'm 18 years old, I recently just graduated high school. I'm very depressed because I see kids going to school, getting jobs, cars etc and I am stuck in my life. I can't work, I can't do a thing without being afraid of being deported. I feel very low. It saddens me everyday I sit at home wishing my life was better.
Anonymous

At the age of three, my mom left me and my twin brother in the care of my grandmother to find a better life. She worked day and night to have us back. Six months later my lovely, hardworking mother sent for us. Our trip to America wasn't nearly as hard as hers though. She had to walk the deadly trail, hoping she could make it is so she can see us again. Once we were all together life got better for a short time. Some years after my mother lost her job because of an on the job accident. My mother was fired and felt lost. Our life is now better, but all I want is to be able to keep my education going and to give back all I was given. It's a dream that may never come true, but my hope is there. May God help me and bless all of you.
Diana
No location given

I was born here in USA Northridge, CA in 1980 by immigrant parents. My mother came to the USA at the age of 15 and my father at the age of 16. Both of them should of been in high school but got here and started working. We never received any type of government help. We had to work very hard to survive and pay our rent until now. I heard on the news about what is going on at the border and didn't really care until I heard my cousin and her two young children were held. She and her husband and children are here because their lands were taken away and some bad people are trying to steal the rest of their lands. My cousin was able to get help but told me some really horrible stories about how they are being held in one small room and they are all crowded with moms and babies not being able to sleep and eat only once a day. I had no idea this was happening until today when she and her 2 children were released. The youngest of her children is a 1 1/2 yr old girl. They are here now but she was left with a real bad trauma. She wakes up crying asking for food, something that she never did until this happed. I really feel sad to know that people are not being treated right but worse than animals! We are children of God. What happened to one nation under God?
Yesenia
Northridge, CA

I'm 42 and live in Morocco with my deported husband. His visa had expired and he overstayed. He saved my life as I was divorcing an abusive husband of 20 years. I relocated and we married. He was taking care of me and my son. I was back in college. Until the day they found him. They deported him and left me homeless. I only had enough money to buy a ticket to his country as nobody would help me. We are now stuck here and making it but struggling. I say why would my country deport someone who was working and helped me a citizen make my life better. We are out of ways for me to come home and nobody to help us.
Julie
Morocco

I am a U.S. and Canadian citizen and have lived here in the U.S. for over 9 years now. My boyfriend was brought to the U.S. (without papers) when he was 17. He came with his dad, leaving his mom and siblings behind in Mexico. He has never been back and has now lived in the U.S. for over 14 years. When they arrived at the border town in Mexico, they were kidnapped for ransom. Their kidnappers started to take them out to the desert (which many times means death.) Thankfully, however, he and his dad managed to escape and continue their journey. Despite having had that harrowing experience, my boyfriend explained that he and his dad had a rather easy crossing, not suffering nearly as much as many do. Anyway, we plan to get married soon, but our future is uncertain. In the beginning of this year, he got pulled over for driving with a suspended license. Instead of just being given the standard fine, he was also given a court date. Before I met him, I had a very different perspective over illegal immigration. I was very "by the books" and not very understanding of what immigrants go through. But now I have a lot of respect for all immigrants; they are so determined and work so hard and are willing to suffer everything in order to provide a better life for their families. His story and his perspective have helped me broaden my perspective and have a greater compassion for others.
Katie
No city given

My parents and I arrived to the U.S with a visitor's visa. My grandfather was facing some serious times and my mother was 19 years old and not seeing her dad for 18 years decided to visit him. My dad was 22 and I was 1 year old! My mother tells me their intention was never to stay, but they did. It has been 19 years and I was excited when they passed the act where students could get a legal temporary stay ,DACA (deferred action for children arrivals). After all this time of feeling in the shadows and not really living "free" I went to see lawyers who could help me apply, but I couldn't because I visited my grandmother in Mexico for 7 months. Since I couldn't apply for the DACA my parents got me into an arranged marriage. At first i agreed but once I thought about it I changed my mind but it didn't matter. They took me into the office and I got married. I was manipulated in several was into doing so. What hurts the most is that not even seeing me crying did they not go through with it. But I didn't apply for my papers through my husband. I got the courage to stand my ground and not care about the consequences and even though people tell me " you're already married just do it" I say no. It is not right! I'm filling for divorce! And if there is no solution to my situation. I'm going back to Mexico. Starting fresh and trusting god! I'm 20 years old now, I'm waiting until my 26 birthday to make my final choice. Some people forget that the constitution of the United States starts with "We the people ..." not "We the American Citizens"
Liz
California

I came here when I was 3 years old. I'm currently 16. Everyone else in my family that is here with me is legal. Everyone but me. I'm close to finishing high school... too close. I love America, this is my home, but this is no way to live. I didn't choose to be here, they did... and now I'll have to deal with the consequences.I just want to go to college, study medicine and save lives. Is that too much to ask for? I just want to belong here, I want to be an American citizen.
Lost Dreamer
Somewhere within America

I came to America from United Kingdom London in 2005 for a holiday. I was 18 years old at the time I got a 3 months visa waiver, I had no plans staying over my visa but faith had its own plans. I meet guy and we married in 2007. We continued living together till we went to a lawyer and advised me to go back to England as that's the only way for my hubby to apply a petition for me. Meanwhile we took his advice I came back to UK so when he tried to process for me the petition we found out that I have ban for 10 years as I overstayed my visa more than 1 year.
Londoner
Oregon

My story starts in Haiti 1978. My mom was only 15 and pregnant. My dad 22. My dad left me and my mom and came to America for a better life. When I was about 7months old my mom decided to let my aunt take me to America under a different name. When I came to America I was passed around with no status or papers. My father later became a U.S. Citizen and never applied for me. I am now 35yrs old and I don't know any other country but here! And I don't have enough money to fix my situation either I feel lost.
Chenille
Boston

I was brought here when I was 10 years old. I am now 28yrs old. I went to elementary, middle and high school. I have three daughters with my fiance. He is a U.S citizen born in California. He wants to apply for my residency here, but we are scared that because I was brought here illegally they could send me back to El Salvador. I have been working as a Medical Assistant for 8 yrs and started taking courses at a local college to get my nursing degree. We want to get marry but we don't know if USCIS will sent me back.
Carolina
Wheaton, MD

I came to the U.S. when I was 7 years old. My stepfather was an american soldier who married my German mother in Germany and also adopted me before we entered the U.S. My mother passed away in 1968 and told me I was a citizen. Being a young girl and not knowing what credentials that were needed to get government benefits for Medicare and monthly Social Security payouts for later after all my husband and I have paid into the system since age 16. We have been married for 48 years. My husband is an American citizen, born in Tx.
Presently Homeland is supposed to look up my history in the U.S and finding info on permanent resident and citizenship through my mother. I was 18 when she received her citizenship. It has been 2 years that Homeland has had my info filled out by Catholic family services. I also applied for my permanent resident card. I really don't care at this point which one they send but it has been one year for the green card and everything is at a standstill for both applications. What does a person do with this Obama care? I am over 65 and cannot get Medicare through Obama and private insurance is very expensive!
Marianne White
Amarillo Tx

I'm married a wonderful citizen American for 8 years, live together for 10 years, but we are living out of states since 2004 due to visa denied. The reason is " sham divorce for immigration" from consulate officer...for 10 years my husband never go back to USA and I'm so scared to go to US consulate to interview for visa (for any kind of visa). I just feel so sorry for my husband. He could not see his parents for longtime... because we love each other so much no matter what we stay...but still...feel so sad and don't know what to do next.
Mai
Ho Chi Minh City

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Statistics do not tell the story of immigration. People do. Since its inception, this nation has been continually infused with the energy of newcomers. Yet their assimilation has seldom been smooth. The challenges we face today are not new. Only the stories are. SHARE YOUR STORY IMPORTANT NOTICE If you need legal advice on immigration...

# data[].attributes.headline
My Secret Life as an Undocumented Immigrant

# data[].attributes.subject
My Secret Life as an Undocumented Immigrant

# data[].attributes.headline
What It’s Like to Be a Teen Living in an Immigration Detention Center

# data[].attributes.subject
What It’s Like to Be a Teen Living in an Immigration Detention Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Adriana had long looked forward to her 16th birthday - but when the date finally arrived, she celebrated not at home with her family and friends, but in a Texas center for immigrants that felt more like a prison.

"That day I didn't do anything. I just sat there and I cried and cried all day," Adriana recalls to Teen Vogue. Weeks earlier, she had fled El Salvador with her mother and sister, Allison, then 13, crossing the Rio Grande in order to escape violence. When they entered the United States, they didn't have any authorization, and when they were picked up by border patrol officials, they said they were seeking asylum.

The three have found themselves stuck in a system of family detention, where other women and children like themselves are kept under lock and key.

Until 2014, under the Obama administration, children and children traveling with families seeking asylum in the U.S., like Adriana (now 17) and Allison (now 15), were required to be held in the least restrictive setting appropriate for their age while they awaited their court dates. In 2014, however, following a summer of Central American violence that saw tens of thousands of families and children (more than 68,000 families and 68,000 unaccompanied children were apprehended by agents between fall 2013 and 2014) stopped by border patrol, those hoping for asylum began increasingly finding themselves sent to detention centers, often privately run, for stays that extended indefinitely. Then Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson explained at the time that detaining asylum seekers was seen as a method of deterring others from crossing the border. The new policy has led to a dramatically different experience for families seeking to immigrate. As of August 2016, more than 2,000 women and children were being held at facilities in Texas and Pennsylvania maintained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE).

The facilities, two in Texas and a smaller one in Pennsylvania, are restrictive, dorm-like settings, often compared to cozier-looking prisons, where mothers and children as young as two weeks old are policed by guards. Meals, school, and recreation all take place within the center, and families share rooms with strangers. Some of the centers have features like playgrounds and salons. However, the inability to leave and the monotony of life take a toll on the mental health of some residents, with reports of depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts amongst residents.

Adriana, Allison, and their mother were picked up by border patrol after entering Texas in August 2015. Shortly thereafter, they were sent to the South Texas Family Residential Center, a 2,400-bed center in the city of Dilley, a community that's become an immigrant detention capital. The girls expected to be released after a short stay to join their father, who had left El Salvador several years prior and was living and working in Dallas. But while Johnson has said that the average detainee is held for only 20 days, their family is one of a number whose stays have stretched past the one-year mark.

After more than a month at Dilley, a center staff member told Allison to begin packing their things to prepare to leave. "We got very excited. We thought that that was where we were going, that we were going to go home. But then when we got all our stuff ready and they took us to our room, we saw a bunch of other women that were leaving as well," Adriana tells Teen Vogue. Aware that her mother had not signed any release documents, she began to fear they were about to be deported. After several hours in that room, the group was taken to an airport and put on a plane to Pennsylvania.

"When we got on the plane, it was several of us families, including kids as young as five years old. On the plane we saw a lot of men, a lot of people in shackles and cuffs, and we were wondering how they could allow a kid as young as five to see this?" says Adriana.

ICE officials tell Teen Vogue that protocols have shifted and families are now, for the most part, transported on commercial flights. But when Adriana's family traveled, it was on ICE Air, one of the routine flights mainly comprised of people facing deportation, including those being returned to their home countries, some of whom had been convicted of crimes. Arriving at yet another facility, the much smaller Berks County Residential Center, a public center in the borough of Leesport, she worked to maintain hope while spending each day in a sparse room shared with another family, eating cafeteria food and spending a lot of time indoors.

"When we got there, we were all trying to stay very positive, thinking, 'OK, now we're going to leave this place really soon,'" Adriana recalls. "Why would it be so difficult for them to just get us a ticket home and let us go back to our family [in Dallas]?" Administrators offered them no timeline for when they might be able to leave.

Adriana was not the only Berks resident feeling in limbo and receiving little information about her case. U.S. family detention is a system that doesn't seem to operate under any easily understandable rhyme or reason, with women and their children given little information about the progress of their cases, when they might expect to be released, or who is making that decision. This was acknowledged even by a Department of Homeland Security Advisory Committee, which said in a report that "At the individual immigration officer level, it remains unclear what factors are used for custody determinations, and how they are applied." This summer and fall, a group of mothers in the facility even joined together for hunger strikes meant to protest and draw attention to their prolonged detainment. Adriana said she and her sister, Allison, were eager to take part but said the strikers had been told that any minors involved could potentially be transferred and separated from their mothers.

As the weeks at Berks stretched on, the sisters grew tired of the restrictions and monotony. "Everything was the same," says Allison. "We would have breakfast in the morning, and we would have school, and then we would go to the computers or take a nap, or later at night we would watch some TV, and we were so tired of it all." Even school offered little in the way of stimulation. She says that children between the ages of 12 and 18 were in the same class with no distinctions made between grade levels. As an 11th grader, Adriana felt hopelessly unchallenged, learning alongside 7th- and 8th-graders.

ICE officials tell Teen Vogue that children are given an educational assessment within three days of arriving, and an individual educational plan is developed for each child.

After nearly a year at Berks, in the fall of 2016, Adriana and Allison's mother, Carmen, who had frequently been ill, began to feel dizzy. Adriana went to get her something to drink and returned to see her condition rapidly worsening. "Her hands started getting really cold. She said that everything was going numb. Her face was really pale. Mom started to say that she was feeling so bad that she thought that she was dying. I kept saying to her, 'Mom, please don't say that,'" says Adriana.

Carmen was eventually taken to the hospital, where she had her gall bladder removed. One day after her operation, she was discharged and returned to Berks. Her daughters were appalled at what they saw as a total lack of regard for her needs during her recuperation. No provisions were made for her to have food appropriate for her recovery, they say, and they received no assistance from staff in helping her to the bathroom or visits with outside family members. ICE officials said they could not comment on residents' individual health records due to strict HIPAA provisions.

While the surgery may have been the lowest point in a grueling 13-month period, it presented a ray of hope. Adriana says Carmen's attorneys filed paperwork contesting her having to return to the facility after undergoing such a serious surgery. Shortly thereafter, the family was notified that they were being released to go live with their father in Dallas. "We just cried and we screamed and laughed, and we couldn't believe it. We hugged each other. It was just unbelievable. That day was October 5. It was the day before my birthday, so I couldn't believe it," Adriana recalls.

Today, Adriana and Allison are in the 11th and 9th grades and living in Texas with their mom and dad. "We are at home; we go to school; we are learning things we are supposed to be learning. We meet a bunch of different people. We're going to a bunch of different places like normal teenagers. We have phones," Adriana explains. "Most importantly, we are with our family. We are with our dad after 11 years of not seeing each other."

But their fears remain. Their case is still not settled, and while it was the Obama administration under which they were held, they know that President Donald Trump's policies on immigration may threaten them and millions of others. A judicial order currently keeps them from being deported; they are required to report to ICE for regular appointments. "We are very scared for all the promises that he [Trump] has made of deporting so many people because we're very scared to go back to our country. Things in our country are not OK," Adriana says.

Thoughts of the families remaining in custody weigh heavily on the girls' minds as well. "There are people that we arrived with at Berks when we first arrived there who are still detained there, and we always wonder, How is it possible?" Adriana says. For many, it seems, fear in their own nation has been replaced by fear in a new one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What It's Like to Be a Teen Living in an Immigration Detention Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"When we got there, we were all trying to stay very positive, thinking, 'OK, now we're going to leave this place really soon.'"

# data[].attributes.headline
What You Can Do Right Now to Help Immigrant Families Separated at the Border

# data[].attributes.subject
What You Can Do Right Now to Help Immigrant Families Separated at the Border

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What You Can Do Right Now to Help Fight Trump’s Family-Separation Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to the experts who are actively doing just that.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Difference Between "Migrant" and "Immigrant" 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Difference Between "Migrant" and "Immigrant" 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teixeira says one distinction between an immigrant and a migrant can be seen in these visas, specifically in that immigrant visas are "related to lawful permanent-resident status."

Another distinction between the terms "migrant" and "immigrant" could be between the "outward-bound vs. inward-bound" viewpoint of the specific terms, he says. "The term 'migrant' focuses on the act of leaving one's country. The term 'immigrant' focuses on the act of settling in the receiving country," Teixeira says.
Can they be used interchangeably?
Conversationally and in the news, many people use the terms interchangeably. But can they be used interchangeably and mean the same thing?

While Teixeira says the terms can be used interchangeably casually, he says that "notable anti-immigration publications, especially in Europe, focus on using the term 'migrant' in a way that furthers their anti-immigrant viewpoint."

Using "migrant" in this way has led to the term carrying a "sinister, despective connotation," Teixeira says. "The term seems to be used, in such contexts, to undermine the permanence of the individual's life in the receiving country, and to play down any claim of, for instance, asylum, as there is increasingly an implication that 'migrants' tend to be economic migrants - and therefore only moving for work opportunities."

Teixeira tells Teen Vogue that this tactic is used to advance the idea that a migrant is a "temporary outsider" who is in the "receiving country to take and take without giving back." This rhetoric provides a way for people within a receiving country to "exclude noncitizens from being accepted as part of their local community."

For these reasons, Teixeira says he typically avoids using the term "migrant." He also notes that immigration law typically considers those people who are not on permanent-resident visas immigrants, even if they are here for seasonal work and plan on returning to their home country after they complete the seasonal work.

Teixeira says immigration lawyers in the U.S. typically focus on whether a person has "lawful permanent-resident status" as opposed to asking if they are an immigrant. He also states that immigration lawyers in the U.S. normally don't use the term "migrant" in an effort to avoid the "negative tone the term 'migrant' now carries."
Can a migrant be an immigrant?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Difference Between "Migrant" and "Immigrant"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ongoing highlight of immigration issues has led to confusion about the definition of "immigrant" and that of "migrant," as both terms have been in the news quite a bit.

# data[].attributes.headline
How the United States Immigration System Works

# data[].attributes.subject
How the United States Immigration System Works

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
U.S. immigration law is based on the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, protecting refugees, and promoting diversity. This fact sheet provides basic information about how the U.S. legal immigration system is designed and functions.

The body of law governing U.S. immigration policy is called the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA allows the United States to grant up to 675,000 permanent immigrant visas each year across various visa categories. On top of those 675,000 visas, the INA sets no limit on the annual admission of U.S. citizens' spouses, parents, and children under the age of 21. In addition, each year the president is required to consult with Congress and set an annual number of refugees to be admitted to the United States through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Once a person obtains an immigrant visa and comes to the United States, they become a lawful permanent resident (LPR). In some circumstances, noncitizens already inside the United States can obtain LPR status through a process known as "adjustment of status."

LPRs are eligible to apply for nearly all jobs (i.e., jobs not legitimately restricted to U.S. citizens) and can remain in the country permanently, even if they are unemployed. After residing in the United States for five years (or three years in some circumstances), LPRs are eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship. It is impossible to apply for citizenship through the normal process without first becoming an LPR.

Each year the United States also admits a variety of noncitizens on a temporary basis. Such "non-immigrant" visas are granted to everyone from tourists to foreign students to temporary workers permitted to remain in the country for years. While certain employment-based visas are subject to annual caps, other non-immigrant visas (including tourist and student visas) have no numerical limits.

I. Family-Based Immigration

Family unification is an important principle governing U.S. immigration policy. The family-based immigration system allows U.S. citizens and LPRs to bring certain family members to the United States. Family-based immigrants are admitted either as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or through the family preference system.

An unlimited number of visas are available every year for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Prospective immigrants in this category must meet standard eligibility criteria, and petitioners must meet certain age and financial requirements. Immediate relatives are:

spouses of U.S. citizens;

unmarried minor children of U.S. citizens (under 21 years old); and

parents of U.S. citizens (petitioner must be at least 21 years old to petition for a parent).

A limited number of visas are available every year under the family preference system. Prospective immigrants in the family preference system must meet standard eligibility criteria, and petitioners must meet certain age and financial requirements. The family preference system includes:

adult children (married and unmarried) and brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens (petitioner must be at least 21 years old to petition for a sibling); and

spouses and unmarried children (minor and adult) of LPRs.

In order to balance the overall number of immigrants arriving based on family relationships, Congress established a complicated system for calculating the available number of family preference visas for any given year. The number is determined by starting with 480,000 (the maximum number in principle allocated for all family-based immigrants) and then subtracting the number of immediate relative visas issued during the previous year and the number of aliens "paroled" into the United States during the previous year. Any unused employment preference immigrant numbers from the preceding year are then added to this total to establish the number of visas that are available for allocation through the family preference system. However, by law, the number of family-based visas allocated through the preference system may not be lower than 226,000. The number of immediate relatives often exceeds 250,000 in a given year and triggers the 226,000 minimum for preference visas. As a result, the total number of family-based visas often exceeds 480,000. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, family-based immigrants comprised 68.8 percent of all new LPRs in the United States.

The family-based immigration system is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Family-Based Immigration System

Immediate Relatives

U.S. Citizen adults

Spouses, unmarried minor children, and parents

* Plus any unused visas from the 4th preference.

** Plus any unused visas from 1st and 2nd preference.

***Plus any unused visas from the all other family-based preferences.

Worldwide level of family preference allocation: 480,000 minus visas issued to immediate relatives and parolees, plus unused employment-visas from previous fiscal year. Floor for preference categories: 226,000.

Source: William A. Kandel, Permanent Legal Migration to the United States, (CRS Report No. R42866) (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014), https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42866.pdf.

In order to be admitted through the family-based immigration system, a U.S. citizen or LPR sponsor must petition for an individual relative, establish the legitimacy of the relationship, meet minimum income requirements, and sign an affidavit of support stating that the sponsor will be financially responsible for the family member(s) upon arrival in the United States or adjustment to LPR status within the United States. The individual relative also must meet certain eligibility requirements that include submitting to a medical exam and obtaining required vaccinations (including a COVID-19 vaccination), an analysis of any immigration or criminal history, as well as demonstrating that they will not become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.

The spouses and children who accompany or follow the principal immigrant (the one sponsored by the U.S. citizen or LPR under the family-preference category) are referred to as derivative immigrants. Derivative immigrants also count toward the numerical caps for the categories in Table 1. That means that many of the visa slots allotted for members of these categories are often actually used by the spouses and children of the members. For example, in FY 2019, 61,031 people were admitted in the category "brothers and sisters" of U.S. citizens, but only 22,179 of them were actual brothers or sisters of U.S. citizens. The rest were spouses (14,956) and children (23,896) of the siblings of U.S. citizens.

II. Employment-Based Immigration

The United States provides various ways for immigrants with valuable skills to come to the country on either a permanent or a temporary basis.

Temporary Visa Classifications

Temporary employment-based visa classifications permit employers to hire and petition for foreign nationals for specific jobs for limited periods. Most temporary workers must work for the employer that petitioned for them and have limited ability to change jobs. There are more than 20 types of visas for temporary nonimmigrant workers. These include L-1 visas for intracompany transfers; various P visas for athletes, entertainers, and skilled performers; R-1 visas for religious workers; various A visas for diplomatic employees; O-1 visas for workers of extraordinary ability; and various H visas for both highly skilled and lesser-skilled workers. The visa classifications vary in terms of their eligibility requirements, duration, whether they permit workers to bring dependents, and other factors. In most cases, these workers must leave the United States if their status expires or if their employment is terminated. It may be possible, depending on the type of job and the foreign national's qualifications, for an employer to sponsor the worker for permanent employment. A foreign national does not have to be working for the employer in order to be sponsored. However, depending on the permanent immigration category sought and the foreign national's current nonimmigrant category, he or she may be able to complete the steps to become an LPR while continuing to live and work in the United States.

Permanent Immigration

The overall numerical limit for permanent employment-based immigrants is 140,000 per year. This number includes the immigrants plus their eligible spouses and minor unmarried children, meaning the actual number of employment-based immigrants is less than 140,000 each year. Any unused family preference immigrant numbers from the preceding year are added to this cap to establish the number of visas that are available for allocation through the employment-based system. The total number of available visas is then divided into five preference categories. For some categories, the sponsor must first test the U.S. labor market under terms and conditions established by the Department of Labor, and the Secretary of Labor must certify that the petitioner's application meets certain requirements before the sponsor may file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). For some categories, the sponsor's first step is to file a petition with USCIS or the foreign national may self-petition. The final step is the foreign national's application for an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad or an application to adjust status to LPR if in lawful status in the United States. For consular processing, the immigrant visa application cannot be filed until after USCIS approves the immigrant petition. For adjustment of status, the time to file the application depends on whether a visa number is considered to be immediately available.

The employment-based immigration system is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Permanent Employment-Based Preference System

Skilled workers with at least two years of training or experience, professionals with college degrees, or "other" workers for unskilled labor that is not temporary or seasonal.

40,040***

"Other" unskilled laborers restricted to 5,000

*Plus any unused visas from the 4th and 5th preferences.

**Plus any unused visas from the 1st preference.

***Plus any unused visas from the 1st and 2nd preference.

Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants: 140,000 for principal applicants and their dependents.

Source: Ruth Ellen Wasem, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, March 13, 2012), 4, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32235.pdf.

In FY 2019, immigrants admitted through the employment preferences made up 13.5 percent of all new LPRs in the United States.

III. Per-Country Ceilings

In addition to the numerical limits placed on the various immigration preference categories, the INA also places a limit on how many immigrants can come to the United States from any one country. Currently, no group of permanent immigrants (family-based and employment-based combined) from a single country can exceed seven percent of the total number of people immigrating to the United States in a single fiscal year. This is not a quota to ensure that certain nationalities make up seven percent of immigrants, but rather a limit that is set to prevent any immigrant group from dominating immigration flows to the United States.

IV. Refugees and Asylees

Refugees are admitted to the United States based upon an inability to return to their home countries because of a "well-founded fear of persecution" due to their race, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, religion, or national origin. Refugees apply for admission from outside of the United States, generally from a "transition country" that is outside their home country. The admission of refugees turns on numerous factors, such as the degree of risk they face, membership in a group that is of special concern to the United States (designated yearly by the president and Congress), and whether or not they have family members in the United States.

Each year, the president, in consultation with Congress, determines the numerical ceiling for refugee admissions. The overall cap is broken down into limits for each region of the world. After September 11, 2001, the number of refugees admitted into the United States fell drastically. After the Bush administration put new security checks in place, annual refugee admissions returned to their previous levels and rose during the Obama administration. During the Trump administration, the refugee ceiling fell sharply, from 110,000 in FY 2017 to 45,000 in FY 2018 and 30,000 in FY 2019. For FY 2020, the ceiling was set at an all-time low of 18,000-although only 11,814 were actually admitted (the lowest number of admitted refugees since the system was created in 1980.) The FY 2021 ceiling was set at 15,000 by the Trump administration, but was subsequently raised to 62,500 by the Biden administration. However, as of August 31, 2021, only 7,637 refugees had been admitted with just one month remaining in the current fiscal year.

Of the 62,500 admissions determined by the president for FY 2021, the regional allocations are shown in Table 3 below. Given the slow pace of admissions, it is unlikely that any of these allocations will be met.
Table 3: Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions, FY 2021
Asylum is available to persons already in the United States who are seeking protection based on the same five protected grounds upon which refugees rely. They may apply at a port of entry at the time they seek admission or within one year of arriving in the United States. There is no limit on the number of individuals who may be granted asylum each year, nor are there specific categories for determining who may seek asylum. In FY 2019, 46,508 individuals were granted asylum.

Refugees and asylees are eligible to become LPRs one year after admission to the United States as a refugee or one year after receiving asylum.

V. The Diversity Visa Program

The Diversity Visa Program was created by the Immigration Act of 1990 as a dedicated channel for immigrants from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. Each year, 55,000 visas are allocated randomly through a computer-generated lottery to nationals from countries that have sent fewer than 50,000 immigrants to the United States in the previous five years. Of the 55,000, up to 5,000 are made available for use under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act program, created in 1997 to provide relief to certain asylum seekers who applied for asylum before a specific date. This results in a reduction of the actual annual diversity visa limit to 50,000. The program was originally intended to favor immigration from Ireland (during the first three years of the program at least 40 percent of the visas were exclusively allocated to Irish immigrants). Diversity visas are now distributed on a regional basis and benefit Africans and Eastern Europeans in particular.

To be eligible for a diversity visa, potential applicants from qualifying countries must have a high-school education (or its equivalent) or have, within the past five years, a minimum of two years working in a profession requiring at least two years of training or experience. Spouses and minor unmarried children of the principal applicant may also enter as derivatives.

Immigration bans implemented by the Trump administration effectively shut down the Diversity Visa Program in 2020 and left roughly 43,000 of that year's lottery winners without their visas. Those 2020 lottery winners who did not receive visas by the end of the fiscal year lost their chance to immigrate to the United States, prompting some of them to file lawsuits against the federal government in an effort to obtain their visas. Although the Biden administration subsequently lifted the immigration bans, the Diversity Visa Program has resumed at a very slow pace. By the end of June 2021, the State Department had issued only 3,094 diversity visas for FY 2021. Some FY 2021 lottery winners have filed lawsuits demanding that the State Department issue their visas before the end of the fiscal year.

VI. Other Forms of Humanitarian Relief

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is is granted to people who are in the United States but cannot return to their home country because of "natural disaster," "extraordinary temporary conditions," or "ongoing armed conflict." TPS is granted to a country for six, twelve, or eighteen months and can be extended beyond that if unsafe conditions in the country persist. TPS does not necessarily lead to LPR status or confer any other immigration status.

Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) provides protection from deportation for individuals whose home countries are unstable, therefore making return dangerous. Unlike TPS, which is authorized by statute, DED is at the discretion of the executive branch. DED does not necessarily lead to LPR status or confer any other immigration status.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a program established in 2012 which permits certain individuals who were brought to the United States while under the age of 16 and who have resided continuously in the United States since June 15, 2007, to remain in the United States and work lawfully for at least two years, so long as they have no significant criminal record and have graduated high school or college or received a degree equivalent. It does not confer any path to permanent legal status and requires renewal every two years. In 2017, the Trump administration attempted to end DACA, but this action was challenged in court. In June 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration's attempt to terminate the program was unlawful. The Trump administration subsequently tried to impose new limits on DACA, but this action was also challenged in court and a federal judge in New York ordered the administration to set aside the newly imposed limits. Separately, a federal judge in Texas ruled that DACA was unlawful and that no new, first-time applications should be accepted. In January 2021, President Biden issued a memorandum reaffirming the federal government's commitment to DACA and pledging to appeal the Texas ruling.

Humanitarian parole allows certain individuals to enter the United States, even though they may not meet the definition of a refugee and may not be eligible to immigrate through other channels. Parolees may be admitted temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.

VII. U.S. Citizenship

In order to qualify for U.S. citizenship through naturalization, an individual must have had LPR status (a green card) for at least five years (or three years if he or she obtained the green card through a U.S.-citizen spouse or through the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA). There are other exceptions including, but not limited to, members of the U.S. military who serve in a time of war or declared hostilities. Applicants for U.S. citizenship must be at least 18 years old, demonstrate continuous residency, demonstrate "good moral character," pass English and U.S. history and civics exams (with certain exceptions), and pay an application fee, among other requirements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the United States Immigration System Works

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S. immigration law is very complex, and there is much confusion as to how it works. This fact sheet provides basic information about how the U.S. legal immigration system is designed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Immigration Timeline: Definition & Reform - HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A timeline of U.S. immigration shows how, from the 1600s to today, the United States became a nation of people from hundreds of cultures, languages and beliefs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A detailed look at immigration legislation from the Colonial Period to the present

The Immigration Act of 1907 broadens the categories of people banned from immigrating to the U.S. The list excludes "imbeciles," "feeble-minded" people, those with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, tuberculosis victims, children who enter the U.S. without parents, and those who committed crimes of "moral turpitude."

The "Gentleman's Agreement" between the U.S. and Japan ends the immigration of Japanese workers.

Congress passes the Expatriation Act of 1907 that says women must adopt the citizenship of their husbands. Therefore, women who marry foreigners lose their U.S. citizenship unless their husbands become citizens.

The Alien Registration Act (Smith Act) requires that all immigrants age 14 and up register with the government and be fingerprinted. The act also bans individuals considered "subversives" from immigrating.

News breaks about inhumane detention centers along the US-Mexico border; there are numerous stories of unsanitary conditions, violence, and the separation of children from their families. Protests break out across the country and around the globe, and many call for the dissolution of ICE, the immigration organization seen as most responsible for the detentions. As of summer 2020, the detention centers remain a matter of public debate.

A detailed look at immigration legislation from the Colonial Period to the present

The Immigration Act of 1907 broadens the categories of people banned from immigrating to the U.S. The list excludes "imbeciles," "feeble-minded" people, those with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, tuberculosis victims, children who enter the U.S. without parents, and those who committed crimes of "moral turpitude."

The "Gentleman's Agreement" between the U.S. and Japan ends the immigration of Japanese workers.

Congress passes the Expatriation Act of 1907 that says women must adopt the citizenship of their husbands. Therefore, women who marry foreigners lose their U.S. citizenship unless their husbands become citizens.

The Alien Registration Act (Smith Act) requires that all immigrants age 14 and up register with the government and be fingerprinted. The act also bans individuals considered "subversives" from immigrating.

News breaks about inhumane detention centers along the US-Mexico border; there are numerous stories of unsanitary conditions, violence, and the separation of children from their families. Protests break out across the country and around the globe, and many call for the dissolution of ICE, the immigration organization seen as most responsible for the detentions. As of summer 2020, the detention centers remain a matter of public debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
History and timeline of immigration laws passed in the U.S. from the colonial period to the present

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's one of the most divisive issues in American society, once again brought to the fore because of a deadly mass shooting.

So what is the basis for the right to bear arms? And what key events have helped shape the debate?

The very beginning
15 December 1791
It makes sense to start with the date the Second Amendment to the US constitution was ratified. Here, 27 simple words set the path to gun ownership in the US.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The fact that the sentence does not make grammatical sense has only added fuel to the debate about what its true meaning is.

Is the key part "a well regulated militia" - meaning that only people who belong to a militia should be armed? And if so, what constitutes a militia in the modern day? In 1791 it represented a group that armed itself against the British army.

Is the key part instead "the people"? And if so, who are "the people"?

It's clear which part of the amendment gun enthusiasts see as most relevant - a sign in the lobby of the National Rifle Association (NRA) Museums in Virginia cuts off the first 13 words and says only:

The Revolt at Cincinnati
21-22 May 1977

The NRA today is a powerful pro-gun lobbying group that fiercely resists gun control efforts and says it has five million members.

It wasn't always the case.

The organisation was co-founded by a former New York Times reporter, William C Church, in 1871 to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis".

It was set up by former Union soldiers who fought in the Civil War who had been shocked at the poor level of marksmanship of their fellow Union fighters compared with their Confederate rivals (its first president was Gen Ambrose Burnside, whose facial hair inspired the term "sideburns").

Much of its activity before the late 1970s involved hunting and organising shooting competitions.

But a shift began to happen in the 1960s and 70s due in part to rising crime rates and a growing conservative movement, at the time the NRA was keen to move away from lobbying.

"An increasing proportion of members were buying guns for self-protection," Adam Winkler writes in his book Gunfight: The Battle Over The Right To Bear Arms In America. "The leadership of the NRA didn't understand the importance of this shift and decided that the organization should recommit itself to hunting and recreational shooting."

The result was that during the NRA's annual meeting in Ohio, more conservative elements of the group staged a surprise coup in what's become known as The Revolt in Cincinnati.

They were led by Harlon Carter, the head of the NRA's lobbying arm who had once been jailed for shooting dead a Mexican teenager. After a fraught meeting that lasted until 04:00, the NRA's leadership was voted out and the group's new direction as a fierce opponent to gun control was set.

What are an individual's rights?
26 June 2008
One of the most significant recent developments in recent US gun law came thanks to a security guard in Washington DC.

The district had some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, barring individuals from keeping a gun in the home. But Dick Heller wanted to be able to take his work gun home to the high-crime area in which he lived.

His case - backed not by the NRA but by a group of libertarian lawyers - went all the way up to the US Supreme Court.

The debate focused closely on what those 27 words in the Second Amendment meant in a 21st Century context. Is it OK for an individual to own a gun if they're not technically in a militia?

Five of the justices thought the DC law should be struck down, and four dissented. A whole new interpretation of the Second Amendment was drawn.

In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."

"This is a great moment in American history," NRA chief Wayne LaPierre said after the ruling on 26 June 2008. "Our founding fathers wrote and intended the Second Amendment to be an individual right. The Supreme Court has now acknowledged it."

While gun sales had already been on the rise in the US for some time, they started to increase significantly in the wake of the DC vs Heller case - in the month the ruling was made, almost 820,000 FBI background checks were conducted; in the same month a year later, there were almost 970,000.

It's worth noting though that the Supreme Court added some caveats.

Justice Scalia wrote: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

The court's opinion, he said, did not mean "longstanding prohibitions", such as "the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings" were now lifted.

#NeverAgain?
14 February 2018

Only time will tell whether the shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida, is a true turning point in the debate about guns in the US.

But it helped galvanise a new gun control movement driven by young people - one that is not necessarily calling for an end to guns, but for compromise and change.

Students who survived the attack that killed 17 people have demanded an end to gun violence in schools.

Their pleas helped bring about a federal ban on "bump stocks", modifications that enabled semi-automatic rifles to shoot more rounds per minute. And Parkland survivors continue to be some of the most prominent young voices for change on gun regulation.

Other mass shootings have led to change in some states.

After the killing of 26 people in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012, some states enforced better background checks (the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, however, said more states loosened gun restrictions in the year after the attack).

When 58 people were shot dead in Las Vegas in October 2017 - the worst mass shooting in modern US history - Massachusetts banned bump stocks.

So what may happen now?

"In Newtown, the students were so young they couldn't stand up, but trust me - we are going to be the change," Parkland survivor Alex Wind told the BBC.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Four dates that explain the US gun debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's one of the most divisive issues in American society, once again brought to the fore because of a deadly mass shooting. So what is the basis for the right to bear arms? And what key events have helped shape the debate?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The War on Drugs Begins

Drug use for medicinal and recreational purposes has been happening in the United States since the country's inception. In the 1890s, the popular Sears and Roebuck catalogue included an offer for a syringe and small amount of cocaine for $1.50. (At that time, cocaine use had not yet been outlawed.)

In some states, laws to ban or regulate drugs were passed in the 1800s, and the first congressional act to levy taxes on morphine and opium took place in 1890.

The Smoking Opium Exclusion Act in 1909 banned the possession, importation and use of opium for smoking. However, opium could still be used as a medication. This was the first federal law to ban the non-medical use of a substance, although many states and counties had banned alcohol sales previously.

In 1914, Congress passed the Harrison Act, which regulated and taxed the production, importation, and distribution of opiates and cocaine.

Alcohol prohibition laws quickly followed. In 1919, the 18th Amendment was ratified, banning the manufacture, transportation or sale of intoxicating liquors, ushering in the Prohibition Era. The same year, Congress passed the National Prohibition Act (also known as the Volstead Act), which provided guidelines on how to federally enforce Prohibition.

Prohibition lasted until December, 1933, when the 21st Amendment was ratified, overturning the 18th.

Marijuana Tax Act of 1937

In 1937, the "Marihuana Tax Act" was passed. This federal law placed a tax on the sale of cannabis, hemp, or marijuana.

The Act was introduced by Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina and was drafted by Harry Anslinger. While the law didn't criminalize the possession or use of marijuana, it included hefty penalties if taxes weren't paid, including a fine of up to $2000 and five years in prison.

Controlled Substances Act

President Richard M. Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) into law in 1970. This statute calls for the regulation of certain drugs and substances.

The CSA outlines five "schedules" used to classify drugs based on their medical application and potential for abuse.

Schedule 1 drugs are considered the most dangerous, as they pose a very high risk for addiction with little evidence of medical benefits. Marijuana, LSD, heroin, MDMA (ecstasy) and other drugs are included on the list of Schedule 1 drugs.

The substances considered least likely to be addictive, such as cough medications with small amounts of codeine, fall into the Schedule 5 category.

Nixon and the War on Drugs

In June 1971, Nixon officially declared a "War on Drugs," stating that drug abuse was "public enemy number one."

A rise in recreational drug use in the 1960s likely led to President Nixon's focus on targeting some types of substance abuse. As part of the War on Drugs initiative, Nixon increased federal funding for drug-control agencies and proposed strict measures, such as mandatory prison sentencing, for drug crimes. He also announced the creation of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP), which was headed by Dr. Jerome Jaffe.

Nixon went on to create the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 1973. This agency is a special police force committed to targeting illegal drug use and smuggling in the United States.

At the start, the DEA was given 1,470 special agents and a budget of less than $75 million. Today, the agency has nearly 5,000 agents and a budget of $2.03 billion.

Ulterior Motives Behind War on Drugs?

During a 1994 interview, President Nixon's domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman, provided inside information suggesting that the War on Drugs campaign had ulterior motives, which mainly involved helping Nixon keep his job.

In the interview, conducted by journalist Dan Baum and published in Harper magazine, Ehrlichman explained that the Nixon campaign had two enemies: "the antiwar left and black people." His comments led many to question Nixon's intentions in advocating for drug reform and whether racism played a role.

Ehrlichman was quoted as saying: "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did."

The 1970s and The War on Drugs

In the mid-1970s, the War on Drugs took a slight hiatus. Between 1973 and 1977, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession.

Jimmy Carter became president in 1977 after running on a political campaign to decriminalize marijuana. During his first year in office, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to decriminalize up to one ounce of marijuana.

Say No to Drugs

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan reinforced and expanded many of Nixon's War on Drugs policies. In 1984, his wife Nancy Reagan launched the " Just Say No " campaign, which was intended to highlight the dangers of drug use.

President Reagan's refocus on drugs and the passing of severe penalties for drug-related crimes in Congress and state legislatures led to a massive increase in incarcerations for nonviolent drug crimes.

In 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which established mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug offenses. This law was later heavily criticized as having racist ramifications because it allocated longer prison sentences for offenses involving the same amount of crack cocaine (used more often by black Americans) as powder cocaine (used more often by white Americans). Five grams of crack triggered an automatic five-year sentence, while it took 500 grams of powder cocaine to merit the same sentence.

Critics also pointed to data showing that people of color were targeted and arrested on suspicion of drug use at higher rates than whites. Overall, the policies led to a rapid rise in incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses, from 50,000 in 1980 to 400,000 in 1997. In 2014, nearly half of the 186,000 people serving time in federal prisons in the United States had been incarcerated on drug-related charges, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

A Gradual Dialing Back

Public support for the war on drugs has waned in recent decades. Some Americans and policymakers feel the campaign has been ineffective or has led to racial divide. Between 2009 and 2013, some 40 states took steps to soften their drug laws, lowering penalties and shortening mandatory minimum sentences, according to the Pew Research Center.

In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which reduced the discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine offenses from 100:1 to 18:1.

The recent legalization of marijuana in several states and the District of Columbia has also led to a more tolerant political view on recreational drug use.

Technically, the War on Drugs is still being fought, but with less intensity and publicity than in its early years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
War on Drugs - Timeline in America, Definition & Facts | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The War on Drugs is a phrase used to refer to a government-led initiative in America that aims to stop illegal drug use, distribution and trade by increasing and enforcing penalties for offenders. The movement started in the 1970s and is still evolving today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Drug use is down over the last 25 years, but a half million Americans are in prison for drug offenses. How should success be measured?

America is either winning the war on drugs or losing it badly, depending on whom you ask.

The fact that the answers vary so widely raises the question, How should success or failure be measured? As part of its focus on crime and punishment, the Bulletin put that query to several HLS alumni who figure prominently in the national debate over drug policy, across the political spectrum.

For Ethan Nadelmann '84, head of the Drug Policy Alliance, a New York City-based policy and lobbying group dedicated to a less punitive approach to drug policy, the answer lies in the social and economic costs of a strategy that he believes has put too many in jail or prison and done little to reduce the availability of drugs. Of the approximately 2 million people behind bars in the U.S., he notes, about 500,000 are there for drug-law violations-more than the total number of people jailed for all criminal offenses in Western Europe, although the U.S. has 100 million fewer people.

"If we're lucky, our grandchildren will recall the global war on drugs of the late 20th and early 21st centuries as some bizarre mania," says Nadelmann. "The true challenge is learning to live with drugs so that they cause the least harm. An effective strategy needs to establish realistic objectives and criteria for evaluating success or failure, and must focus on reducing the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drug use and drug policies."

Nadelmann and the DPA favor legalizing marijuana and treating it like alcohol-a commodity, he says, that's taxed and regulated with prescribed minimum legal ages for use. Working primarily at the state level, Nadelmann and his group have been successful in a variety of ballot initiatives dealing with medical use of marijuana and treatment instead of incarceration (for nonviolent offenders charged with possession). The DPA's single biggest victory, he says, has been the passage of California's Proposition 36, in 2000, which requires treatment in place of incarceration for many drug possession offenders and has already kept close to 100,000 people from going to jail or prison. "We doubled money for drug treatment while simultaneously saving taxpayers money by reducing prison populations," he notes. "We're now taking that model around the rest of the country."

Nadelmann has also been successful in pushing for needle-exchange programs, which now exist in nearly half the states. Neither Congress nor any presidential administration has taken federal action promoting such programs even though the public health world is nearly unanimous in its assessment that they significantly reduce the spread of HIV.

"At the state level, people have to deal with the fact that HIV and hepatitis are spreading; it's going to add to hospital costs," Nadelmann says. "They have to deal with the fact that building new prisons and new jails is a major cost. When you get to the national level in Washington, that's where you see a lot more of the rhetoric, a lot more of the disregard for both the human cost and the fiscal cost of the policy."

William Bennett '71, drug czar under President George H.W. Bush, and secretary of education under President Reagan, takes a very different approach to measuring the success of national drug policy. "You measure [success] by overall, current drug use," he argues. "Other good measures include city-by-city emergency room admission rates and [looking] to the culture-how is drug use depicted in the movies and in television?" By all of these yardsticks, he believes, the war on drugs declared by President Nixon more than 30 years ago is succeeding.

He points to a study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which shows that in 1999, 14.8 million Americans were drug users, down from the 1979 peak of 25 million users.

As drug czar, Bennett was a vehement advocate of the punitive approach, and he continues to support it today. He is untroubled by the number of people in prison for drug offenses. "Most people are in prison for multiple offenses, including illegal drug use," he contends. "Some people plead down to a drug use conviction when a lot of other charges brought them to the prosecution in the first place. Very few people are in prison for drug use alone."

Nevertheless, even Bennett believes that, for some offenders, penalties besides prison should be explored: "[We should] consider revoking privileges and licenses-drivers' licenses, realty licenses-bar memberships and so on."

Asked about proposals for decriminalizing marijuana use, Bennett answers emphatically: "No. Marijuana is the most abused drug because it is the most used drug. More children are in treatment for marijuana than for all other drugs."

Somewhere between Nadelmann and Bennett is Joseph A. Califano Jr. '55, President Carter's secretary of health, education and welfare and currently the chairman and president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. Like Bennett, Califano believes that decriminalization of drugs is a dangerous idea and that the criminal justice system must continue to handle drug users with a firm hand. But he has opposed some of the tough mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses and says we can do much better in prevention through education.

Legalization or decriminalization, he believes, would make drugs more available to children, and overall use would increase.

"Marijuana is particularly harmful to children and young teens," Califano said in a written statement to the Bulletin. "It can impair short-term memory and ability to maintain attention span; it inhibits intellectual, social and emotional development, just when young people are learning in school. [There is] a powerful statistical correlation between using marijuana and use of other drugs such as heroin and cocaine." Twelve- to 17-year-0lds who smoke marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than those who do not, he says.

"Legalizing drugs not only is playing Russian roulette with children," Califano said. "It is slipping a couple of extra bullets into the chamber."

Drug policy, he believes, should focus on initiatives such as neighborhood- and school-based programs aimed at high-risk 8- to 13-year-olds. He also favors outreach programs specifically tailored to particular categories of people who may abuse substances for very different reasons and in very different patterns, such as mothers on welfare, families torn by domestic abuse, families living in public housing, college students and people with HIV.

He sees the medical marijuana initiatives, the push for reduced sentences and the needle-exchange programs as vehicles to pave the way for the reformers' true goal: broad drug legalization.

But Nadelmann rejects the claim that decriminalization of marijuana is a Trojan horse for a broader legalization agenda. With regard to decriminalizing other drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamines, he says, "A majority of my organization and my board and the drug-policy reform movement as a whole are basically very cautious. We basically don't support that." But, he adds, he and his group support an elimination of prison time or severe punishment for possession of small quantities for personal use.

He also believes that opinion polls are "trending our way." Majorities of Americans now favor decriminalization of marijuana, treatment instead of incarceration for many drug offenses, elimination of police asset-forfeiture powers and needle-exchange programs, he says.

Maybe so, but few national politicians have jumped on the bandwagon. One who has is Kurt Schmoke '76, who, as mayor of Baltimore from 1987 to 1999, argued for decriminalization of marijuana and for a radical rethinking of national drug policy. The war on drugs, Schmoke has said, is America's "domestic Vietnam."

"The problem of substance abuse is more a public health problem than a criminal justice problem," he says. "The drug traffickers can be beaten and the public health of the United States can be improved if we are willing to substitute common sense for rhetoric, myth and blind persistence," he wrote. Schmoke worked with Nadelmann in developing a needle-exchange program in Baltimore when he was mayor. Are such programs making a difference?

"I think they are," Schmoke says. "But it's simply a long and difficult process because there are some people who believe that it's just morally wrong. Forget whether the war on drugs is actually effective or not; they would say that it's morally wrong to legalize drugs that are currently illegal."

Perhaps the best-known spokesman for that view is Bennett, who is buoyed by a recent study showing a slight dip in drug use among high school students. "People should associate drug use with a penalty," he maintains. "We need an unambiguous message."
Dick Dahl contributed to this story.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is the war on drugs succeeding? - Harvard Law Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
America is either winning the war on drugs or losing it badly, depending on whom you ask. The fact that the answers vary so widely raises the question, How should success or failure be measured?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The war on drugs in the United States has been a failure that has ruined lives, filled prisons and cost a fortune. It started during the Nixon administration with the idea that, because drugs are bad for people, they should be difficult to obtain. As a result, it became a war on supply.

As first lady during the crack epidemic, Nancy Reagan tried to change this approach in the 1980s. But her "Just Say No" campaign to reduce demand received limited support.

Over the objections of the supply-focused bureaucracy, she told a United Nations audience on Oct. 25, 1988: "If we cannot stem the American demand for drugs, then there will be little hope of preventing foreign drug producers from fulfilling that demand. We will not get anywhere if we place a heavier burden of action on foreign governments than on America's own mayors, judges and legislators. You see, the cocaine cartel does not begin in Medellín, Colombia. It begins in the streets of New York, Miami, Los Angeles and every American city where crack is bought and sold."

Her warning was prescient, but not heeded. Studies show that the United States has among the highest rates of drug use in the world. But even as restricting supply has failed to curb abuse, aggressive policing has led to thousands of young drug users filling American prisons, where they learn how to become real criminals.

Image

A New Jersey woman who was questioned by police officers about possession of heroin. Credit... Jessica Kourkounis for The New York Times

The prohibitions on drugs have also created perverse economic incentives that make combating drug producers and distributors extremely difficult. The high black-market price for illegal drugs has generated huge profits for the groups that produce and sell them, income that is invested in buying state-of-the-art weapons, hiring gangs to defend their trade, paying off public officials and making drugs easily available to children, to get them addicted.

Drug gangs, armed with money and guns from the United States, are causing bloody mayhem in Mexico, El Salvador and other Central American countries. In Mexico alone, drug-related violence has resulted in over 100,000 deaths since 2006. This violence is one of the reasons people leave these countries to come to the United States.

Add it all up and one can see that focusing on supply has done little to curtail drug abuse while causing a host of terrible side effects. What, then, can we do?

First the United States and Mexican governments must acknowledge the failure of this strategy. Only then can we engage in rigorous and countrywide education campaigns to persuade people not to use drugs.

The current opioid crisis underlines the importance of curbing demand. This approach, with sufficient resources and the right message, could have a major impact similar to the campaign to reduce tobacco use.

We should also decriminalize the small-scale possession of drugs for personal use, to end the flow of nonviolent drug addicts into the criminal justice system. Several states have taken a step in this direction by decriminalizing possession of certain amounts of marijuana. Mexico's Supreme Court has also declared that individuals should have the right to grow and distribute marijuana for their personal use. At the same time, we should continue to make it illegal to possess large quantities of drugs so that pushers can be prosecuted and some control over supply maintained.

Finally, we must create well-staffed and first-class treatment centers where people are willing to go without fear of being prosecuted and with the confidence that they will receive effective care. The experience of Portugal suggests that younger people who use drugs but are not yet addicted can very often be turned around. Even though it is difficult to get older addicted people off drugs, treatment programs can still offer them helpful services.

With such a complicated problem, we should be willing to experiment with solutions. Which advertising messages are most effective? How can treatment be made effective for different kinds of drugs and different degrees of addiction? We should have the patience to evaluate what works and what doesn't. But we must get started now.

As these efforts progress, profits from the drug trade will diminish greatly even as the dangers of engaging in it will remain high. The result will be a gradual lessening of violence in Mexico and Central American countries.

We have a crisis on our hands - and for the past half-century, we have been failing to solve it. But there are alternatives. Both the United States and Mexico need to look beyond the idea that drug abuse is simply a law-enforcement problem, solvable through arrests, prosecution and restrictions on supply. We must together attack it with public health policies and education.

We still have time to persuade our young people not to ruin their lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | The Failed War on Drugs (Published 2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The war on drugs in the United States has been a failure that has ruined lives, filled prisons and cost a fortune. It started during the Nixon administration with the idea that, because drugs are bad for people, they should be difficult to obtain. As a result, it became a war on supply.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
EDITOR'S NOTE:&nbspThis article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.

We live in a time of change, when people are questioning old assumptions and seeking new directions. In the ongoing debate over health care, social justice, and border security, there is, however, one overlooked issue that should be at the top of everyone's agenda, from democratic socialists to libertarian Republicans: America's longest war. No, not the one in Afghanistan. I mean the drug war.

For more than a century, the US has worked through the UN (and its predecessor, the League of Nations) to build a harsh global drug-prohibition regime-grounded in draconian laws, enforced by pervasive policing, and punished with mass incarceration. For the past half-century, the United States has also waged its own "war on drugs" that has complicated its foreign policy, compromised its electoral democracy, and contributed to social inequality. Perhaps the time has finally come to assess the damage that drug war has caused and consider alternatives.

Even though I first made my mark with a 1972 book that the CIA tried to suppress on the heroin trade in Southeast Asia, it's taken me most of my life to grasp all the complex ways this country's drug war, from Afghanistan to Colombia, the Mexican border to inner-city Chicago, has shaped American society. Last summer, a French director doing a documentary interviewed me for seven hours about the history of illicit narcotics. As we moved from the 17th century to the present and from Asia to America, I found myself trying to answer the same relentless question: What had 50 years of observation actually drilled into me, beyond some random facts, about the character of the illicit traffic in drugs?

At the broadest level, the past half-century turns out to have taught me that drugs aren't just drugs, drug dealers aren't just "pushers," and drug users aren't just "junkies" (that is, outcasts of no consequence). Illicit drugs are major global commodities that continue to influence US politics, both national and international. And our drug wars create profitable covert netherworlds in which those very drugs flourish and become even more profitable. Indeed, the UN once estimated that the transnational traffic, which supplied drugs to 4.2 percent of the world's adult population, was a $400 billion industry, the equivalent of 8 percent of global trade.

In ways that few seem to understand, illicit drugs have had a profound influence on modern America, shaping our international politics, national elections, and domestic social relations. Yet a feeling that illicit drugs belong to a marginalized demimonde has made US drug policy the sole property of law enforcement and not health care, education, or urban development.

During this process of reflection, I've returned to three conversations I had back in 1971 when I was a 26-year-old graduate student researching that first book of mine, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. In the course of an 18-month odyssey around the globe, I met three men, deeply involved in the drug wars, whose words I was then too young to fully absorb.

The first was Lucien Conein, a legendary CIA operative whose covert career ranged from parachuting into North Vietnam in 1945 to train communist guerrillas with Ho Chi Minh to organizing the CIA coup that killed South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963. In the course of our interview at his modest home near CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, he laid out just how the agency's operatives, like so many Corsican gangsters, practiced the "clandestine arts" of conducting complex operations beyond the bounds of civil society and how such arts were, in fact, the heart and soul of both covert operations and the drug trade.

Current Issue

Second came Colonel Roger Trinquier, whose life in a French drug netherworld extended from commanding paratroopers in the opium-growing highlands of Vietnam during the First Indochina War of the early 1950s to serving as deputy to General Jacques Massu in his campaign of murder and torture in the Battle of Algiers in 1957. During an interview in his elegant Paris apartment, Trinquier explained how he helped fund his own paratroop operations through Indochina's illicit opium traffic. Emerging from that interview, I felt almost overwhelmed by the aura of Nietzschean omnipotence that Trinquier had clearly gained from his many years in this shadowy realm of drugs and death.

My last mentor on the subject of drugs was Tom Tripodi, a covert operative who trained Cuban exiles in Florida for the CIA's 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion and then, in the late 1970s, penetrated mafia networks in Sicily for the US Drug Enforcement Administration. In 1971, he appeared at my front door in New Haven, Connecticut, identified himself as a senior agent for the Treasury Department's Bureau of Narcotics, and insisted that the bureau was worried about my future book. Rather tentatively, I showed him just a few draft pages of my manuscript for The Politics of Heroin, and he promptly offered to help me make it as accurate as possible. During later visits, I would hand him chapters, and he would sit in a rocking chair, shirtsleeves rolled up, revolver in his shoulder holster, scribbling corrections and telling remarkable stories about the drug trade-like the time his bureau found that French intelligence was protecting the Corsican syndicates smuggling heroin into New York City. Far more important, though, through him I grasped how ad hoc alliances between criminal traffickers and the CIA regularly helped both the agency and the drug trade prosper.

Looking back, I can now see how those veteran operatives were describing to me a clandestine political domain, a covert netherworld in which government agents, military men, and drug traders were freed from the shackles of civil society and empowered to form secret armies, overthrow governments, and even, perhaps, kill a foreign president.

At its core, this netherworld was then and is today an invisible political realm inhabited by criminal actors and practitioners of Conein's "clandestine arts." Offering some sense of the scale of this social milieu, in 1997 the United Nations reported that transnational crime syndicates had 3.3 million members worldwide who trafficked in drugs, arms, humans, and endangered species. Meanwhile, during the Cold War, all the major powers-Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States-deployed expanded clandestine services worldwide, making covert operations a central facet of geopolitical power. The end of the Cold War has in no way changed this reality.

For over a century now, states and empires have used their expanding powers for moral prohibition campaigns that have periodically transformed alcohol, gambling, tobacco, and above all, drugs into an illicit commerce that generates sufficient cash to sustain covert netherworlds.

Drugs and US Foreign Policy

The influence of illicit drugs on US foreign policy was evident between 1979 and 2019 in the abysmal failure of its never-ending wars in Afghanistan. Over that period, two US interventions there fostered all the conditions for just such a covert netherworld. While mobilizing Islamic fundamentalists to fight the Soviet occupation of that country in the 1980s, the CIA tolerated opium trafficking by its Afghan mujahedeen allies while arming them for a guerrilla war that would ravage the countryside, destroying conventional agriculture and herding.

In the decade after superpower intervention ended in 1989, a devastating civil war and then Taliban rule only increased the country's dependence upon drugs, raising opium production from 250 tons in 1979 to 4,600 tons by 1999. This nearly 20-fold increase transformed Afghanistan from a diverse agricultural economy into a country with the world's first opium monocrop-that is, a land thoroughly dependent on illicit drugs for exports, employment, and taxes. Demonstrating that dependence, in 2000, when the Taliban banned opium in a bid for diplomatic recognition and cut production to just 185 tons, the rural economy imploded and their regime collapsed as the first US bombs fell in October 2001.

To say the least, the US invasion and occupation of 2001-02 failed to effectively deal with the drug situation in the country. As a start, to capture the Taliban-controlled capital, Kabul, the CIA mobilized Northern Alliance leaders who had long dominated the drug trade in northeastern Afghanistan, as well as Pashtun warlords active as drug smugglers in the southeastern part of the country. In the process, they created a postwar politics ideal for the expansion of opium cultivation.

Even though output surged in the first three years of the US occupation, Washington remained uninterested, resisting anything that might weaken military operations against Taliban guerrillas. Testifying to this policy's failure, the UN's Afghanistan Opium Survey 2007 reported that the harvest that year reached a record 8,200 tons, generating 53 percent of the country's gross domestic product and accounting for 93 percent of the world's illicit narcotics supply.

When a single commodity represents over half of a nation's economy, everyone-officials, rebels, merchants, and traffickers-is directly or indirectly implicated. In 2016, The New York Times reported that both Taliban rebels and provincial officials opposing them were locked in a struggle for control of the lucrative drug traffic in Helmand province, the source of nearly half the country's opium. A year later, the harvest reached a record 9,000 tons, which, according to the US command, provided 60 percent of the Taliban's funding. Desperate to cut that funding, American commanders dispatched F-22 fighters and B-52 bombers to destroy the insurgency's heroin laboratories in Helmand-doing inconsequential damage to a handful of crude labs and revealing the impotence of even the most powerful weaponry against the social power of the covert drug netherworld.

With unchecked opium production sustaining Taliban resistance for the past 17 years and capable of doing so for another 17, the only US exit strategy now seems to be restoring those rebels to power in a coalition government-a policy tantamount to conceding defeat in its longest military intervention and least successful drug war.

High Priests of Prohibition

For the past half-century, the ever-failing US drug war has found a compliant handmaiden at the UN, whose dubious role when it comes to drug policy stands in stark contrast to its positive work on issues like climate change and peacekeeping.

In 1997, the director of UN drug control, Pino Arlacchi, proclaimed a 10-year program to eradicateillicit opium and coca cultivation from the face of the planet, starting in Afghanistan. In 2007, his successor, Antonio Maria Costa, glossing over that failure, announced in the UN's World Drug Report that "drug control is working and the world drug problem is being contained." While UN leaders were making such grandiloquent promises about drug prohibition, the world's illicit-opium production was, in fact, rising almost ninefold, from just 1,200 tons in 1971, the year the US drug war officially started, to a record 10,500 tons by 2017.

This gap between triumphal rhetoric and dismal reality cries out for an explanation. That ninefold increase in illicit opium supply is the result of a market dynamic I've termed the stimulus of prohibition. At the most basic level, prohibition is the necessary condition for the global narcotics trade, creating both local drug lords and transnational syndicates that control this vast commerce. Prohibition, of course, guarantees the existence and well-being of such criminal syndicates, which, to evade interdiction, constantly shift and build up their smuggling routes, hierarchies, and mechanisms, encouraging a worldwide proliferation of trafficking and consumption while ensuring that the drug netherworld will only grow.

In seeking to prohibit addictive drugs, US and UN drug warriors act as if mobilizing for forceful repression could reduce drug trafficking, thanks to the imagined inelasticity of or limits on the global narcotics supply. In practice, however, when suppression reduces the opium supply from one area (for example, Burma or Thailand), the global price just rises, spurring traders and growers to sell off stocks, old growers to plant more, and other areas (say, Colombia) to enter production. In addition, such repression usually only increases consumption. If drug seizures, for instance, raise the street price, then addicted consumers will maintain their habit by cutting other expenses (food, rent) or raising their income by dealing drugs to new users and so expanding the trade.

Instead of reducing the traffic, the drug war has actually helped stimulate that ninefold increase in global opium production and a parallel surge in US heroin users, from just 68,000 in 1970 to 886,000 in 2017.

By attacking supply and failing to treat demand, the UN-US drug war has been pursuing a "solution" to drugs that defies the immutable law of supply and demand. As a result, Washington's drug war has, in the past 50 years, gone from defeat to debacle.

The Domestic Influence of Illicit Drugs

That drug war has, however, incredible staying power. It has persisted despite decades of failure because of an underlying partisan logic. In 1973, while President Richard Nixon was still fighting his drug war in Turkey and Thailand, New York's Republican governor, Nelson Rockefeller, enacted the notorious Rockefeller drug laws. Those included mandatory penalties of 15 years to life for the possession of just four ounces of narcotics.

As the police swept inner-city streets for low-level offenders, prison sentences in New York State for drug crimes surged from only 470 in 1970 to a peak of 8,500 in 1999, with African Americans accounting for 90 percent of those incarcerated. By then, New York's state prisons held a previously unimaginable 73,000 people. During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican, dusted off Rockefeller's anti-drug campaign for intensified domestic enforcement, calling for a "national crusade" against drugs and winning draconian federal penalties for personal drug use and small-scale dealing.

For the previous 50 years, the US prison population remained remarkably stable at just 110 prisoners per 100,000 people. The new drug war, however, almost doubled those prisoners, from 370,000 in 1981 to 713,000 in 1989. Driven by Reagan-era drug laws and parallel state legislation, prison inmates soared to 2.3 million by 2008, raising the country's incarceration rate to an extraordinary 751 prisoners per 100,000 population. And 51 percent of those in federal penitentiaries were there for drug offenses.

Such mass incarceration has led as well to significant disenfranchisement, starting a trend that would, by 2012, deny the vote to nearly 6 million people, including 8 percent of all African-American voting-age adults, a constituency that had gone overwhelmingly Democratic for more than half a century. In addition, this carceral regime concentrated its prison populations, including guards and other prison workers, in conservative rural districts of the country, creating something akin to latter-day rotten boroughs for the Republican Party.

Take New York's 21st Congressional District, which covers the Adirondacks and the state's heavily forested north. It's home to 14 state prisons-including some 16,000 inmates, 5,000 employees, and their 8,000 family members-making them collectively the district's largest employer and a defining political presence. Add the 13,000 or so troops in nearby Fort Drum and you have a reliably conservative bloc of 26,000 voters (and 16,000 nonvoters), or the largest political force in a district where only 240,000 residents vote. Not surprisingly, the incumbent Republican congresswoman survived the 2018 blue wave to win handily with 56 percent of the vote. (So never say that the drug war has had no effect.)

So successful were Reagan Republicans in framing this partisan drug policy as a moral imperative that two of his liberal Democratic successors, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, avoided any serious reform of it. Instead of systemic change, Obama offered clemency to about 1,700 convicts, an insignificant handful among the hundreds of thousands still locked up for nonviolent drug offenses.

While partisan paralysis at the federal level has blocked change, the states, forced to bear the rising costs of incarceration, have slowly begun reducing prison populations. In a November 2018 ballot measure, for instance, Florida-where the 2000 presidential election was decided by just 537 ballots- voted to restore electoral rights to the state's 1.4 million felons, including 400,000 African Americans. No sooner did that plebiscite pass, however, than Florida's Republican legislators desperately tried to claw back that defeat by requiring that those felons pay fines and court costs before returning to the electoral rolls.

Not only does the drug war influence US politics in all sorts of negative ways, but it has also reshaped American society-and not for the better. The surprising role of illicit-drug distribution in ordering life inside some of the country's major cities has been illuminated in a careful study by a University of Chicago researcher who gained access to the financial records of a drug gang inside Chicago's impoverished Southside housing projects. He found that in 2005 the Black Gangster Disciple Nation, known as GD, had about 120 bosses who employed 5,300 young men, largely as street dealers, and had an additional 20,000 members aspiring to those jobs. While the boss of each of the gang's hundred crews earned about $100,000 annually, his three officers made just $7.00 an hour, and his 50 street dealers only $3.30 an hour, with other members serving as unpaid apprentices, vying for entry-level slots when street dealers were killed, a fate which one in four regularly suffered.

So what does all this mean? In an impoverished inner city with very limited job opportunities, this drug gang provided high-mortality employment on a par with the minimum wage (then $5.15 an hour) that their peers in more affluent neighborhoods earned from much safer work at McDonald's. Moreover, with some 25,000 members in Southside Chicago, GD was providing social order for young men in the volatile 16-to-30 age cohort-minimizing random violence, reducing petty crime, and helping Chicago maintain its gloss as a world-class business center. Until there is sufficient education and employment in the nation's cities, the illicit drug market will continue to fill the void with work that carries a high cost in violence, addiction, imprisonment, and more generally blighted lives.

The End of Drug Prohibition

As the global prohibition effort enters its second century, we are witnessing two countervailing trends. The very idea of a prohibition regime has reached a crescendo of dead-end violence not just in Afghanistan but recently in Southeast Asia, demonstrating the failure of the drug war's repression strategy. In 2003, Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra launched a campaign against methamphetamine abuse that prompted his police to carry out 2,275 extrajudicial killings in just three months. Carrying that coercive logic to its ultimate conclusion, on his first day as Philippine president in 2016, Rodrigo Duterte ordered an attack on drug trafficking that has since yielded 1.3 million surrenders by dealers and users, 86,000 arrests, and some 20,000 bodies dumped on city streets across the country. Yet drug use remains deeply rooted in the slums of Bangkok and Manila.

On the other side of history's ledger, the harm-reduction movement led by medical practitioners and community activists worldwide is slowly working to unravel the global prohibition regime. With a 1996 ballot measure, California voters, for instance, started a trend by legalizing medical-marijuana sales. By 2018, Oklahoma became the 30th state to legalize medical cannabis. After initiatives by Colorado and Washington in 2012, eight more states have decriminalized the recreational use of cannabis, long the most widespread of illicit drugs.

Hit by a surge of heroin abuse during the 1980s, Portugal's government first reacted with repression that, as everywhere else on the planet, did little to stanch rising drug abuse, crime, and infection. Gradually, a network of medical professionals across the country adopted harm-reduction measures that would provide a striking record of proven success. After two decades of this ad hoc trial, in 2001, Portugal decriminalized the possession of all illegal drugs, replacing incarceration with counseling and producing a sustained drop in HIV and hepatitis infections.

Projecting this experience into the future, it seems likely that harm-reduction measures will be adopted progressively at local and national levels around the globe as various endless and unsuccessful wars on drugs are curtailed or abandoned. Perhaps someday a caucus of Republican legislators in some oak-paneled Washington conference room and a choir of UN bureaucrats in their glass-towered Vienna headquarters will remain the only apostles preaching the discredited gospel of drug prohibition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EDITOR'S NOTE:&nbspThis article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com . To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch. We live in a time of change, when people are questioning old assumptions and seeking new directions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
June 17, 2011 marks the 40th Anniversary of Nixons' War on Drugs. Ever wonder what it costs and if it's worth it?

# data[].attributes.headline
How does overfishing threaten coral reefs?

# data[].attributes.subject
How does overfishing threaten coral reefs?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How does overfishing threaten coral reefs?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The impacts from unsustainable fishing on coral reef areas can lead to the depletion of key reef species in many locations. Such losses often have a ripple effect, not just on the coral reef ecosystems themselves, but also on the local economies that depend on them.

# data[].attributes.headline
In the Pacific Northwest, Native Fishing Rights Take on a Role as Environmental Protector

# data[].attributes.subject
In the Pacific Northwest, Native Fishing Rights Take on a Role as Environmental Protector

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
...& the Best

Western Articles and Media Elsewhere
Compiled by Felicity Barringer and Carolyn P. Rice

New Restrictions on Colorado River Withdrawals in Dry Times Are Close, but the federal Bureau of Reclamation says, in effect, "close only counts in the game of horseshoes." The Arizona state legislature met the bureau's deadline as it agreed to the drought contingency plan formulated by all three states in the river's lower basin, but the final deals with Native tribes and with California's Imperial Irrigation District aren't done yet. The arguments go on. Cronkite News

Native Trout Are Making a Comeback in Colorado, but It's Taken Decades. As the West was colonized, so were its streams; native fish suffered as non-native ones were introduced. The native greenback cutthroat trout was mistakenly declared extinct in 1937, but its history turns out to be much more complicated. Today, the subspecies survives, but barely, and scientists do not agree on a solution for the fish's future. Biographic

Ranchers in Montana Want Consumers to Know Where Beef Comes From. The U.S. imports roughly 10 percent of its beef -- from countries like Canada, Argentina and Uruguay -- but it doesn't have to be labeled as such. Country of origin labeling, Montana ranchers argue, will help consumers make more informed choices--and think it will be good for business. If passed, a bill in the Montana State Senate would require this labeling, as well as prohibit labeling as "meat" the cell-based meat now grown in vitro in laboratories. That decision which could be detrimental to this nascent industry. Civil Eats

Sustainable Development and Gentrification Do Not Have to Go Hand in Hand. An affordable housing project in an industrial, low-income neighborhood of Portland could show the country how green infrastructure can help alleviate poverty and keep communities intact. This project includes weatherization of mobile homes and sustainable landscaping. High Country News

We Need Maps to Comprehend the Scale of the Grand Canyon. Be careful, though-some maps are more attractive than they are accurate. As the iconic national park's 100th anniversary approaches, listen to the Science Friday podcast explore the history of Western mapmaking through the lens of the maps of the Grand Canyon. Science Friday

Art Installations Thrive in the Coachella Valley. Desert X, a biennial art exhibit, opened this past weekend. It showcases art in mediums that range from fabric to cell phone, all to connect people with the valley and its human history. Explore some of the installations in this photo gallery. The Desert Sun

Wildfires Can Cause Thunderstorms, and the world is witnessing more of these as fires become more common and more intense. Scientists still struggle to understand the exact mechanisms behind the storms, but the effects have become clearer. Lightning can spark additional fires, and winds can hamper firefighting efforts. Particles and gases in the clouds can affect weather patterns on the same scale as small volcanoes. Mother Jones

A Surprising Source of Pollution Sits on the Ocean Floor off of California's Central Coast: Golf Balls. The little spheres from coastal golf courses release chemical pollutants and break down into bits of plastic that can enter the food chain. A local teenager and a Stanford University scientist found and began to remove golf balls from the waters off of Pebble Beach by the thousands, but more keep falling in. NPR

Mapping as a Way of Creating Indigenous Dialogue Around Place and Art: Jim Enote, an indigenous farmer and museum director, says that because most maps use colonial names, borders, and ideas of space, expanding the definition of maps has been a necessary part of his process. National Geographic

Decrepit Dams in Washington State May Flood Towns Downstream. A recent wildfire made the landscape more prone to runoff, and the dams cannot store the increased winter rainfall associated with a warmer climate. Attempts to repair and modify the dams have highlighted the financial and political challenges of managing remote wilderness. as local agriculture and salmon habitat rely on the shrinking summer water supply. The Seattle Times

Animals From Insects to Wolves May Suffer From Construction Along the U.S.-Mexico Border. Physical barriers and habitat loss can separate animal populations and limit migration. Over 1,500 native plants and animals in the region could be affected by construction of a wall, according to a 2018 report signed by nearly 3,000 scientists. The New York Times

Pacific Northwest Farmers Have Silos Full of Unsold Legumes. The price of garbanzo beans fell by more than half after changes to U.S. trade policy and sanctions on China last year reduced exports. Farmers had already expanded their production, and now they must find a way to pay their debts. Oregon Public Broadcasting

The City of Spokane Is Trying to Clean Up Its Groundwater, which has been polluted by industrial toxins since World War II. Washington state has recently increased the strictness of its water quality standards, but implementation of these standards faces financial, political, and technological challenges. The pollution has accumulated to dangerous levels in the Spokane River fish, which is of particular consequence to the diet and health of the indigenous Spokane people. High Country News

Is Hunting Elk Out of Season Illegal for A Member of the Crow (Apsáalooke) Tribe? The state of Wyoming imprisoned Clayvin Herrera for hunting elk, but the Crow argue that the conviction violates their treaty with the U.S. The case of Herrera v. Wyoming was heard in the Supreme Court last week, and it draws attention to the complexities and contradictions of legal relationships between the U.S. and tribal nations. The Atlantic

Phoenix Has a Public Health Crisis: Heat. Hot days are more frequent, temperatures are rising with climate change, and more than 155 heat-related deaths happened last summer in Phoenix. The city is searching for ways to keep cool during the summer, including umbrellas, text alerts, and creating more shade. The groups that suffer the most, however, are those with the least ability to change their circumstances: low-income communities and the elderly. NPR

Scientists Are Collecting Pictures of Snowflakes from School Children to Analyze Snow Formation and Weather Patterns. Students in the Sierra Nevada can use their phones to take photos of snowflakes and upload them to a citizen science database. Compared to other technologies, this is a more efficient and less expensive means of collecting data on snow conditions, and it gives students the opportunity to learn about research. Science Friday

National Park Life in a Shutdown Situation Means No Snowplows, Few Toilets and Overflowing Trash. Now the Interior Department is taking the unprecedented step of using entrance fees to pay for basic housekeeping - a use that may contravene the mandates of Congress. Around the system, operations are ad hoc. With fresh snow covering the roads and no personnel available to plow them, Arches and Canyonlands national parks shut their gates a week ago as the federal government's partial shutdown ground headed into its third week. Utah has been funding some personnel costs, but that money was being used to staff visitor centers and clean toilets, not clear roads. In other states, nonprofits, businesses and state governments put up money and volunteer hours to keep parks safe and clean. But makeshift arrangements haven't prevented some parks from closing and others from being inundated with trash, hence the move to repurpose visitor fees. Salt Lake Tribune Washington Post

After Years of Increasingly Inadequate Fire-fighting Budgets, a Fix Passed by Congress Takes Effect later this year creating a $2.25 billion emergency fund federal officials can use when firefighting costs exceed the firefighting budget. The head of the forest service said it can now better plan when responding to catastrophic fires. Under the fix, the annual firefighting budget would remain at a little more than $1 billion per year, but in fiscal 2020 - which begins Oct. 1 - there will be $2.25 billion to fund operations once the regular fund is spent. The emergency fund would grow by $100 million a year, reaching $2.95 billion in fiscal 2027. ASU/Cronkite News

Banning Heights, a Tiny Central Valley Town, Has an Inadequate Water Supply using broken infrastructure; the private utility responsible for maintaining it has failed to do so. For years, residents in this rural enclave tucked above the Interstate 10 freeway have tried to make Southern California Edison repair century-old pipes taking water from San Gorgonio mountains to their homes. Last year the local water company spent $178,000 ensuring adequate flow for basic health, sanitation and firefighting. Meanwhile, water continued to flow above the community from the Whitewater River, pouring out of unrepaired pipes and around deteriorating dams; 98 million gallons leaked into the dirt during fire season. For 15 years, the utility has tried to surrender its license for the hydroelectric system to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC, Banning Heights and the city of Banning say: fix the system first. Desert Sun

The Pacific Northwest Once Boasted Widespread Beaver-Built Salmon Habitat. Now the Tulalip tribes are trying to bring the beaver dams back. After Europeans decimated most of the 400 million beaverds they found in North America, beaver dams crumbled and the ponds and streams slowly disappeared. So did the salmon they supported. More recently, the sentiment that Castor canadensis is a tree-felling, water-stealing, property-flooding pest dominated state agencies in Washington, Oregon and California. But many scientists and land managers are discovering beavers can serve as agents of water conservation, habitat creation, and stream restoration - not to mention groundwater recharge. In Washington, a revised Beaver Bill allows beaver relocations on both sides of the mountains, sailed through. Starting this year, non-tribal groups, like environmental nonprofits, will be able to relocate the animals. BioGraphic

Is It Time to Start Eating Roadkill in Places Outside Alaska? Every year, between 600 and 800 moose are killed in Alaska by cars, leaving up to 250,000 pounds of organic, free-range meat on the road. State troopers who respond to these collisions keep a list of charities and families who have agreed to drive to the scene of an accident at any time, in any weather, to haul away and butcher the body. "It goes back to the traditions of Alaskans: We're really good at using our resources," Alaska State Trooper David Lorring said. The state;s tradition of making do means it would be embarrassing to waste the meat. In the past few years, a handful of states, including Washington, Oregon and Montana, have started to adopt the attitude that Alaskans have always had toward eating roadkill. A loosening of class stigma and the questionable ethics and economics of leaving dinner to rot by the roadside have driven acceptance of the practice in the Lower 48. High Country News

Pollution on the California-Mexico Border, Some Carried by the New River, flows though the region. Some of it wafts through the air that carries factory fumes over Mexico and Calexico, Some rises from fetid garbage dumps. It all does serious harm to the health of local residents. A series of articles show smokestacks, traffic exhaust, dust, and smoke from trash fires, often leave the cities blanketed in hazy air. The pollution is linked to high rates of respiratory illnesses and deaths. The Desert Sun

We Knew the California Snowpack Was Declining. Now We Know How Fast: 79 Percent by the century's end. As it fades, much less snowmelt can be drawn on to fill huge reservoirs such as Shasta, Oroville and Folsom. All this as the state's population and farm economy continue to grow. The new reality that will require fundamental changes in the way California and the federal government have operated the state's water system for nearly 100 years. San Jose Mercury-News

In Sacramento, Two New Decisions on Dividing the Waters. In one, the state's top water agency decides to send more water to Delta fish populations on the San Joaquin River, angering farmers and cities. In another, the governor defers to the federal government and makes more water available to farmers. Sacramento Bee
Sacramento Bee

A Federal Ultimatum Declared on a Colorado River drought contingency plan. Get it done by January 31, said the Bureau of Reclamation Representative told the seven states negotiating the plan - or we'll do it for you. California and Arizona are the last states to fall into line. But this plan, when it is final, could be a bridge to another agreement to manage the water world of the Southwest as the climate changes and the water disappears. Also: how to think about the future. Denver Post Cronkite News John Fleck

Big Utilities Plan Power Shutoffs to Avoid Sparking Wildfires, while the experience of the Camp Fire indicates that small local power grids enhance the resilience of areas in the wildland-urban interface. Utility Drive

Should Washington State Breach Dams to Preserve Orcas? The decline of Puget Sound's orca population has many probable causes: toxins in the water, noise from boats and lack of food. Chinook salmon are its primary food, and salmon runs are feeble, despite tens of millions spent by hydropower authorities to bolster salmon runs. As part of a $1 billion-plus save-the-orca effort, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee unveiled a $750,000 plan to investigate the impact should four Lower Snake River dams be removed. It drew criticism from the northwest's congressional Republicans. Idaho Statesman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In the Pacific Northwest, Native Fishing Rights Take on a Role as Environmental Protector

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Western Articles and Media ElsewhereCompiled by Felicity Barringer and Carolyn P. Rice New Restrictions on Colorado River Withdrawals in Dry Times Are Close, but the federal Bureau of Reclamation says, in effect, "close only counts in the game of horseshoes."

# data[].attributes.headline
What Happens to All That Plastic? From Earth Institute at Columbia University

# data[].attributes.subject
What Happens to All That Plastic? From Earth Institute at Columbia University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's Note (11/27/2017): This post was updated with new statistics on plastic waste generation and recycling, as well as new information on methods of reuse.
What would modern life be like without plastic? According to The World Economic Forum, plastic production has exploded over the last half-century, growing from 16.5 million tons in 1964 to 343 million tons in 2014; it is projected to double by 2036. Where does all of it go when we're done with it?

In 2014, Americans discarded about 33.6 million tons of plastic, but only 9.5 percent of it was recycled and 15 percent was combusted to create electricity or heat.

Most of the rest ends up in landfills where it may take up to 500 years to decompose, and potentially leak pollutants into the soil and water. It's estimated that there are already 165 million tons of plastic debris floating around in the oceans threatening the health and safety of marine life. And an average of 8.8 million more tons enter the oceans each year, including microplastics, tiny particles less than five millimeters long from cosmetics, fabrics or the breakdown of larger pieces, which may be ingested by marine wildlife.

Relatively little of our plastic waste is recycled because there are various types of plastic with different chemical compositions, and recycled plastics can be contaminated by the mixing of types. Plastic waste is also contaminated by materials such as paper and ink. Separating plastics from other recyclables, and different types of plastic from each other, is labor-intensive and so far there has been no easy solution.

Although the Society of Plastic Industries developed seven codes to distinguish types of plastic for recycling, in reality, only two-polyethylene terephthalate (PET, used for synthetic fibers and water bottles) and high density polyethylene (HDPE, used for jugs, bottle caps, water pipes)-are routinely recycled. But in more and more cities like New York and Chicago, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic bags are now being recycled too. And increasingly, the recycling industry's use of near‐infrared spectroscopy, which can identify the chemical composition of plastics, is improving the efficiency and speed of recycling.

Plastics that can be recycled are first sorted, shredded and rid of impurities like paper. The shreds are then melted and formed into pellets, which can be made into other products.

MoistureShield in Arkansas, and Virginia-based Trex recycle polyethylene into outdoor decking material, fencing, and doors and windows. Coca Cola is increasing the amount of recycled plastic in its bottles to 50 percent.

Plastic is made from petroleum or natural gas in a chemical process that combines smaller molecules into a large chainlike molecule, often with other substances added to give it particular qualities. (Some, like phthalates and bisphenol A, can have harmful health effects.) Plastic production is estimated to use four percent of global oil production-both as the raw material and for energy in the manufacturing process. Because these polymers embody energy from fossil fuels (and actually have a higher energy value than coal and wood), leaving so much of it in landfills is not only an environmental hazard, it is a huge waste of a valuable resource that could be used to produce electricity, heat, or fuel.

The Plastics Division of the American Chemical Council asked the Earth Institute's Earth Engineering Center to explore ways of recovering the energy inherent in non-recycled plastics. The 2011 report, which was updated in 2014, determined that the amount of energy contained in the millions of tons of plastic in U.S. landfills is equivalent to 48 million tons of coal, 180 million barrels of oil, or one trillion cubic feet of natural gas. If all this plastic were converted into liquid fuel, it could produce 5.7 billion gallons of gasoline, enough to power 8.9 million cars per year. And the fact is, there are now technologies that can put all this waste to good use.

The report examined three ways of utilizing non-recycled plastic for energy production: converting it directly into liquid fuel, using separated plastics as fuel in special types of power plants, and increasing the amount of garbage burned in waste-to-energy facilities.

Plastics can be converted into crude oil or other types of products through pyrolysis, a high heat process that does not use oxygen. Agilyx, an Oregon-based company, has developed a system that heats polystyrene from foam cups, packaging materials, and Styrofoam to create a styrene monomer, a building block of the plastic industry. The final liquid product can be sold to other refiners to produce oil or to make more polystyrene.

Plastic2Oil in Niagara Falls, NY, uses unwashed, unsorted waste plastic to produce ultra-low sulfur fuels that do not require further refining. The company maintains that its process is "highly green, clean and scalable."

A number of other companies in the U.S., Africa, Asia and Europe are investing in technology that produces liquid fuel from plastic wastes.

According to the updated Earth Engineering Center report, power plants specially designed to use non-recycled plastics as fuel could theoretically produce 61.9 million MWh of electricity, enough to power 5.7 million homes.

Burning more garbage inwaste-to-energy facilities would recover the energy inherent in plastics and reduce greenhouse gas emissions since landfills emit methane (a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide) as garbage decomposes. Unlike incinerators of the past, modern waste-to-energy facilities produce electricity and heat in boilers designed for complete combustion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said they produce electricity "with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity."

If the amount of garbage sitting in U.S. landfills in 2011 was burned in waste-to-energy facilities, it could theoretically yield enough electricity to power 13.8 million households and reduce coal use by 100 million tons a year. In 2015, 71 waste-to-energy facilities and four other power plants in the United States burned 29 million tons of garbage, generating nearly 14 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity.

A 2009 United Nations Environmental Programme report on converting plastic waste into a resource described the production of gaseous fuels, using high heat to decompose plastic waste, and solid fuel derived from a mixture of waste plastic, paper, and wood. The materials are first shredded, sorted then made into pellets. A number of companies in Japan are producing both solid and gaseous fuels. The Showa Denko company, headquartered in Tokyo, uses heat gasification to recycle plastic waste into ammonia, used to manufacture many products, and CO2 for carbonization.

Liter of Light, a grassroots movement with partnerships around the world, has found another way to recycle plastic bottles. It helps energy-poor communities convert discarded soda bottles into solar bottle bulbs to illuminate homes and streets. The organization has installed over 350,000 bottle lights in more than 15 countries.

The best solutions for our plastic problem are still to reduce our use of them, and to reuse and recycle whenever possible. More policies that ban plastic bag use, require bottle deposits and expand recycling would help. But millions of tons of plastic waste still sit in landfills around the country; technologies that are able to tap this waste as a resource can offer multiple benefits, helping to clean up the environment, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, decrease our use of non-renewable virgin resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and generate energy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans discard about 33.6 million tons of plastic each year, but only 9.5 percent of it is recycled and 15 percent is combusted in waste-to-energy facilities. What happens to the rest of it?

# data[].attributes.headline
How Much Plastic is in the Ocean? From PBS

# data[].attributes.subject
How Much Plastic is in the Ocean? From PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Be Smart | How Much Plastic is in the Ocean? | Season 5 | Episode 10 | PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ocean plastic pollution is a massive environmental problem.

# data[].attributes.headline
Plastic pollution: how humans are turning the world into plastic from United Nations

# data[].attributes.subject
Plastic pollution: how humans are turning the world into plastic from United Nations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Modern life would be impossible without plastic - but we have long since lost control over our invention. Why has plastic turned into a problem and what do we know about its dangers? This video is a collaboration with UN Environment and their Clean Seas campaign, If you want to take action to turn the tide on plastics, go to cleanseas and make your pledge. We also partnered with askscience on reddit - on you can talk to experts and ask questions about about plastic pollution today!

Sources used in the video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic pollution: how humans are turning the world into plastic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Modern life would be impossible without plastic - but we have long since lost control over our invention. Why has plastic turned into a problem and what do we know about its dangers?

# data[].attributes.headline
Plastic Pollution from Our World in Data

# data[].attributes.subject
Plastic Pollution from Our World in Data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Hannah Ritchie and Veronika Samborska and Max Roser

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How much plastic ends up in the ocean? Where does it come from?

# data[].attributes.headline
This is why everyday racial profiling is so dangerous from CNN

# data[].attributes.subject
This is why everyday racial profiling is so dangerous from CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This is why everyday racial profiling is so dangerous | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Racial profiling happens in ways many people don't realize. And it doesn't just hurt the victims - it harms the rest of society, too.

# data[].attributes.headline
6 Misconceptions About Native American People from Teen Vogue

# data[].attributes.subject
6 Misconceptions About Native American People from Teen Vogue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Misconceptions About Native American People | Teen Vogue

# data[].attributes.headline
What is Systemic Racism? By Race Forward

# data[].attributes.subject
What is Systemic Racism? By Race Forward

# data[].attributes.headline
Letters for Black Lives: South Asian American Version from Medium

# data[].attributes.subject
Letters for Black Lives: South Asian American Version from Medium

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is the South Asian American version of the open letter created by Letters for Black Lives, an ongoing project for people to create and translate resources on anti-Blackness for their communities in solidarity with #BlackLivesMatter and Black Americans. This letter was written and edited by several people who want to have honest and respectful conversations with their ​families and communities​ about an issue important to them.
EDIT: In response to the cold-blooded police murders of innocent Black men and women, including, but not limited to George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and Tony McDade, we have written an updated version in 2020. This version has been translated in many languages and we hope it will be a helpful starting point for both open conversations and concrete actions.

Dear family and friends,
Overwhelmingly, the police do not face any consequences But stereotypes can be misleading. We want to share another point of view with you: why we should stand with Black Americans. for ending Black lives.
We need to talk.

In school, we learned about Black leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, and many others who fought racism in America during the 1950s and 60s. But their work is far from complete. Recent events show how dangerous it still is to be Black in America.

American police have already killed more than 500 people in 2016 alone. Of those, 25% have been Black, even though Black people make up only 13% of the population. In early July in Louisiana, two White police officers killed a Black man named Alton Sterling while he sold CDs outside a convenience store. The next day in Minnesota, a police officer shot and killed a Black man named Philando Castile in his car during a traffic stop.

When we see these stories in the news, it may seem like it's not our problem. That's because American culture portrays Black people as thugs and criminals. Our negative attitudes toward Black people may also be influenced by prejudice around skin color or caste that exists within our own communities.

In fact, stereotypes directly impact members of our community as well. The media shows us as foreigners with thick accents. We get called names in schools and on the streets. Airport security stops us, and some of us are profiled as terrorists because of our clothes or our religion.

Sometimes, anti-Black racism also puts us in danger. In 2015, Sureshbhai Patel came to Alabama from India to care for his grandson. He was taking a walk outside when a White neighbor called 911 to report a suspicious "skinny Black guy" on the street. The police went on to assault Mr. Patel, who spoke little English. He was left partially paralyzed, spending months in the hospital. The police officer was never convicted of any wrongdoing, even though the entire incident was captured on video.

Incidents like this occur regularly for Black Americans. And they face racism on an even more appalling level - a level built into their daily lives. This racism is all the more difficult to combat because it is embedded in the very foundations of American society and institutions.

We benefit from many of these institutions ourselves. The American government was primarily created by slaveholders, and the foundations for its economy were built on slavery. Many Black Americans are descended from slaves who experienced brutal mistreatment as their owners reaped massive profits - one of the greatest atrocities in history. Today, America continues to fail Black Americans, who face disproportionate rates of imprisonment, poverty, and drug abuse, unequal access to education, employment, and housing - and threats of violence.

But here's the secret our community was never taught: our presence in the U.S. is linked to the work of Black activists. Up until the 1960s, racist immigration laws allowed only 100 immigrants from countries like India into the U.S. per year. But during the Civil Rights Movement, Black Americans used protests and civil disobedience to help remove some of the most racist laws in the U.S. not only for themselves but for all minority communities.

But that wasn't the only major victory of Black activism. It led to lawmakers examining prejudice in many other areas, one of which was immigration policy. The new immigration law of 1965 removed the racist quotas, allowing some of us to come to the U.S. much more easily. There are 4.5 million South Asians in the U.S. today. We have been able to build a community here thanks to Black activists who helped remove major barriers for us.
If you would like to participate in the project, here's a list of ways in which you can help out.
We are thankful for how you have worked to secure better futures in this country. However, not all Americans have equal access to futures like ours. The police have murdered countless Black Americans, like Rekia Boyd, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner. But none of these police officers have been sent to prison. This shows us that the police and the courts don't value Black lives. (We may be harassed, profiled, or called names - but it's unlikely that a confrontation between an unarmed member of our community and a police officer will end with us taking a bullet.)

Can we really be allies to Black Americans? We just have to look at history. More than a century ago, Sri Lankan and Indian religious leaders visited the U.S. and spoke out in support of Black Americans. In the 1950s, Indian freedom fighters shared nonviolent civil disobedience tactics with Black civil rights activists. In the 1960s, Pakistani Professor Mirza Hamid Kizilbash challenged racial segregation in Jackson, Mississippi. Today, many of our community members are starting to support movements like Black Lives Matter. We can choose to continue this 100-year tradition.

Our culture teaches us to stand for justice. We hope that you will join us in supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, and the Black Americans to whom we owe so much.

Sincerely,

Your children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Letters for Black Lives: South Asian American Version

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is the South Asian American version of the open letter created by Letters for Black Lives, an ongoing project for people to create and translate resources on anti-Blackness for their communities...

# data[].attributes.headline
Why White School Districts Have So Much More Money from NPR

# data[].attributes.subject
Why White School Districts Have So Much More Money from NPR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated public schools are unconstitutional.

In 2018, on the 64th anniversary of that ruling, a lawsuit filed in New Jersey claimed that state's schools are some of the most segregated in the nation. That's because, the lawsuit alleged, New Jersey school district borders are drawn along municipality lines that reflect years of residential segregation.

The idea that school district borders carry years of history is the premise of a new report from the nonprofit EdBuild, which studies the ways schools are funded in the U.S.

The report starts with a number: $23 billion. According to EdBuild, that's how much more funding predominantly white school districts receive compared with districts that serve mostly students of color.

"For every student enrolled, the average nonwhite school district receives $2,226 less than a white school district," the report says.

EdBuild singles out 21 states - including California, New Jersey and New York - in which mostly white districts get more funding than districts composed primarily of students of color.

More than half of students in the U.S. go to segregated or "racially concentrated" schools, according to the report. Those are schools in which more than three-quarters of students are white, or more than three-quarters are nonwhite.

Researchers found that high-poverty districts serving mostly students of color receive about $1,600 less per student than the national average. That's while school districts that are predominately white and poor receive about $130 less.
What's causing the disparity?
As Rebecca Sibilia, founder and CEO of EdBuild, explains, a school district's resources often come down to how wealthy an area is and how much residents pay in taxes.

"We have built a school funding system that is reliant on geography, and therefore the school funding system has inherited all of the historical ills of where we have forced and incentivized people to live," she says.

Public schools are primarily funded by local and state sources - the federal government pays for less than 10 percent,on average, of K-12 education. States sometimes step in to provide extra funding for districts that need it most. But not all states have been able to keep up with that demand.
The relationship between funding and teacher strikes
In some of the states with the worst funding disparities, teachers have gone on strike in the past year. In Arizona, poor, primarily white school districts get about $19,000 per student - while high-poverty, nonwhite districts get about $8,000, according to EdBuild.

That means high-poverty districts made up of mostly students of color - about a third of the school districts in the state - receive almost $11,000 less per student than the state's high-poverty, predominantly white districts.

Sibilia also points to the #RedForEd movements in Oklahoma and Colorado. Because those states have placed limits on their taxes, she says, they simply don't have the income to step in and fund the school districts that need it most.
Why funding in Southern states looks more equal
According to EdBuild researchers, predominantly white districts are often smaller than districts with mostly students of color: The former serves an average of just over 1,500 students, and the latter over 10,000, or three times the national average.

That size disparity matters. Sibilia says districts serving mostly students of color "rely more on the decisions that are being made at the state level, but there are fewer voices representing them. And that's where you really start to see the shift in power."

This power dynamic looks different in the South, where school district lines are often drawn along county lines, making districts larger across the board. Researchers found that funding looks more equal in states like Georgia and Alabama.

"This confirms a theory that we've had, which is that the larger the tax base - the larger the actual geography of the school districts - the more you can actually balance out the difference between a wealthy white suburb and a less wealthy rural or urban area," Sibilia says.

EdBuild researchers looked at data from a variety of sources - including the Education Department and the U.S. Census Bureau - to find school system demographics and district funding levels. They compared the funding across districts after taking cost of living into account.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why White School Districts Have So Much More Money

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to a new report, predominantly white school districts receive $23 billion more than districts that serve mostly students of color in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
How to Support Protests When You're Not Affected by the Issue from Teen Vogue

# data[].attributes.subject
How to Support Protests When You're Not Affected by the Issue from Teen Vogue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is It OK to Attend Protests for Marginalized Groups If I’m Not Affected?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We paired with Amnesty International USA to answer.

# data[].attributes.headline
Standing Up Against Hate from Teaching Tolerance

# data[].attributes.subject
Standing Up Against Hate from Teaching Tolerance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Educators have many responsibilities. Three have been heightened in the past year:

Stand up against hate and intimidation, so schools stay safe for learning;

Engage the facts;

Protect the right to learn.

We've always had those responsibilities; they're just more necessary now than ever.

The past year has been fraught for students, teachers and schools. We've seen a spike in incidents of hate and bias on K-12 and college campuses nationwide. It's becoming obvious that every insult overheard on the nightly news, every tweet forwarded on social media and every slur scrawled on a building can have mounting consequences for students and schools. Public figures are explicitly threatening many students' rights and communities. Students are repeating these threats and claims to one another, sometimes without fully understanding them.

And simultaneously, some educators are getting labeled "partisan" if they simply challenge hate or bullying on their own campuses-or engage students in dialogue about real, controversial issues, or just affirm that all students have the right to learn safely in school.

This reality places a burden on educators, to be sure. But no matter our "politics," standing up against hate-and for learning-is the basic work of education. And who better than us to facilitate it?

Stand Up Against Hate and Intimidation

We're in an era of escalating hate and threat toward many of the young people and communities we serve. Undocumented and refugee students have been told that the president wants them out. The federal government is sending the message that schools don't have to honor LGBT students' identities. Boys have heard that disrespecting girls is OK. We've all heard racist, Islamophobic and xenophobic talk become more commonplace, accompanied by targeted policies. These sentiments get repeated on our campuses. Hate-filled violence is on the rise.

And as educators, it's our job to denounce hate and intimidation where we work, to make sure students feel safe to learn.

The U.S. Constitution protects a range of free expression rights in schools. Freedom of speech protects us all, so we don't simply outlaw all "offensive" ideas from our schools. But we don't allow true threats of harm in schools, either, because schools must remain safe for learning. Our civil rights laws also require educators to protect public school students from harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion or disability because a school has a responsibility to maintain a safe and nondiscriminatory learning environment for all students. When hostile environments impede student learning, educators must take action to end the harassment, eliminate any hostile environment and its effects, and prevent the harassment from recurring.

Put these points together, and we see that schools are places where hateful speech and action, harassment and violence are supposed to be challenged, not ignored. As educators, we are both legally and morally responsible for fostering learning environments where people aren't denigrated and threatened so that students can participate in and benefit from school.

Educators must always model what it looks like to be an upstander: to stand up in the moment to challenge hateful speech and call instead for learning and respect. And the primary antidote to hate is preventive speech: continually talking about how to respect and value other human beings every day.

The triage work of educators is to challenge hate-to ask speakers to respect and value others so all can learn. The longer-term work is to prevent hateful activity on campus. And the longest-term, most powerful work is to make our resistance to hate routine, by consistently asking whether the most ordinary words we use in schools and society distort, misunderstand, misrepresent, denigrate or devalue people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Educators have always had the responsibility to stand up to hate and bias-but it's more necessary now than ever.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dr. Seuss Books Can Be Racist, But Students Keep Reading Them by NPR

# data[].attributes.subject
Dr. Seuss Books Can Be Racist, But Students Keep Reading Them by NPR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This week, millions of students and teachers are taking part in Read Across America, a national literacy program celebrated annually around the birthday of Theodor Geisel, better known as Dr. Seuss. For over 20 years, teachers and students have donned costumes - often the Cat in the Hat's iconic red and white striped hat - and devoured books like Green Eggs and Ham.

But some of Seuss' classics have been criticized for the way they portray people of color. In And To Think That I Saw It On Mulberry Street, for example, a character described as Chinese has two lines for eyes, carries chopsticks and a bowl of rice, and wears traditional Japanese-style shoes. In If I Ran the Zoo, two men said to be from Africa are shown shirtless, shoeless and wearing grass skirts as they carry an exotic animal. Outside of his books, the author's personal legacy has come into question, too - Seuss wrote an entire minstrel show in high school and performed as the main character in full blackface.

In light of this, the National Education Association rebranded Read Across America in 2017, backing away from Seuss' books and Seuss-themed activities. It introduced a new theme of "celebrating a nation of diverse readers." Its website now highlights works by and about people of color.

But in many schools and libraries, the week is still synonymous with all things Seuss. Classrooms are decorated in colorful red and blue fish and children dress up as their favorite iconic characters, like Thing 1 and Thing 2, dreaming of the places they'll go.

That tension between Seuss and Seuss-free classrooms is emblematic of a bigger debate playing out across the country - should we continue to teach classic books that may be problematic, or eschew them in favor of works that more positively represent people of color?

Part of the reason this debate is so complicated is the staying power of classic books. Think back to the works lining your school bookshelves.In Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, the N-word appears more than 200 times. But for generations, people have argued that the book is vital to understanding race relations in America in the late 1800s. And the trope of Jews as greedy and money-hungry is pretty clear in The Merchant of Venice. Yet Shakespeare is hailed for his keen understanding of human nature that continues to be relevant today.

Jaya Saxena, a writer whose work examines inclusivity in young adult literature, is in favor of revamping the canon. But she understands why teachers might continue to teach it. She says when she was in high school, her teachers used the classics to teach literary devices and styles of writing, not necessarily to prioritize certain narratives or worldviews. The Merchant of Venice, for example, is a prime example of allegory.

"The point was, here's what this book does well," Saxena says. "Maybe they weren't everybody's favorite books, but they were good examples of ... the craft of writing."

And when planning lessons from year to year, it's easier for teachers to prioritize books they're already familiar with. But when these books include offensive stereotypes, teachers have to decide whether to continue teaching them and how.

"Not engaging [with problematic texts] at all runs too great a risk of not learning or understanding where the problems lie," says Larissa Pahomov, who teaches English at a high school in Philadelphia. "I believe there is a way to look at material that is stereotypical [and] racist and identify it for what it is, and then hopefully, in doing so, neutralize its effect."

When Pahomov read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest with her seniors last fall, she was careful to teach students how to read the work through a critical lens that took the author's background into account. In class discussions, she made sure to emphasize that context to her students as they examined the work.

"What resources did he draw from to write this book, and this character? What has been the Native American reaction to this book specifically? What was the reaction of the psychiatric treatment community? How do we look at it now? What's the treatment of women? There were so many angles to discussing it," she says.

Pahomov notes that because her students are teenagers, having these conversations is possible. But books geared toward younger kids? Those discussions can get a lot more complicated.

Which brings us back to Dr. Seuss.

In a study published earlier this month in Research on Diversity in Youth Literature, researchers Katie Ishizuka and Ramon Stephens found that only 2 percent of the human characters in Seuss' books were people of color. And all of those characters, they say, were "depicted through racist caricatures."

Those caricatures have a potent effect, even at an early age. Research shows that even at the age of 3, children begin to form racial biases, and by the age of 7, those biases become fixed.

"One of the reasons for that is the images and experiences that they're exposed to regarding marginalized groups and people of color," Stephens says. "And so [Seuss' books] being mainstream, and being spread out all over the world, has large implications."

If kids open books and "the images they see [of themselves] are distorted, negative [or] laughable, they learn a powerful lesson about how they are devalued in the society in which they are a part," Rudine Sims Bishop, a scholar of children's literature, wrote in a 1990 article.

But when they see themselves represented in a positive way, it can have a similarly powerful effect.

That's one of the reasons first-grade teacher Emily Petersen says she won't be reading Dr. Seuss with her students this week, or ever.

"If I'm looking at a 6-year-old and choosing what story [I'm] going to teach them how to read through, I'm definitely going to choose the one that affirms and celebrates identities in a new way," she says.

For other teachers who want to help students affirm their identities, the NEA is offering grants and resources to help schools highlight literary works by and about people of color.

But the forces that have kept Dr. Seuss on the bookshelf for decades are strong. Often, schools plan their Read Across America events months in advance. Costumes, books and activities from previous years are ready to go. It can be difficult for teachers to deviate from these plans, especially when they have celebrated in the same way year after year after year. And with over 650 million of his books in circulation worldwide, just like his infamous cat, it looks like Dr. Seuss will keep coming back.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dr. Seuss Books Can Be Racist, But Students Keep Reading Them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent study found that Dr. Seuss books can be pretty racist. It's highlighted a growing debate: Should schools teach classic books that may be problematic or trade them for socially conscious ones?

# data[].attributes.headline
Black Boys Viewed as Older, Less Innocent Than Whites, Research Finds from AmericanPsychological Association

# data[].attributes.subject
Black Boys Viewed as Older, Less Innocent Than Whites, Research Finds from AmericanPsychological Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - Black boys as young as 10 may not be viewed in the same light of childhood innocence as their white peers, but are instead more likely to be mistaken as older, be perceived as guilty and face police violence if accused of a crime, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

"Children in most societies are considered to be in a distinct group with characteristics such as innocence and the need for protection. Our research found that black boys can be seen as responsible for their actions at an age when white boys still benefit from the assumption that children are essentially innocent," said author Phillip Atiba Goff, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles. The study was published online in APA's Journal of Personality and Social Psychology®.

Researchers tested 176 police officers, mostly white males, average age 37, in large urban areas, to determine their levels of two distinct types of bias - prejudice and unconscious dehumanization of black people by comparing them to apes. To test for prejudice, researchers had officers complete a widely used psychological questionnaire with statements such as "It is likely that blacks will bring violence to neighborhoods when they move in." To determine officers' dehumanization of blacks, the researchers gave them a psychological task in which they paired blacks and whites with large cats, such as lions, or with apes. Researchers reviewed police officers' personnel records to determine use of force while on duty and found that those who dehumanized blacks were more likely to have used force against a black child in custody than officers who did not dehumanize blacks. The study described use of force as takedown or wrist lock; kicking or punching; striking with a blunt object; using a police dog, restraints or hobbling; or using tear gas, electric shock or killing. Only dehumanization and not police officers' prejudice against blacks - conscious or not - was linked to violent encounters with black children in custody, according to the study.

The authors noted that police officers' unconscious dehumanization of blacks could have been the result of negative interactions with black children, rather than the cause of using force with black children. "We found evidence that overestimating age and culpability based on racial differences was linked to dehumanizing stereotypes, but future research should try to clarify the relationship between dehumanization and racial disparities in police use of force," Goff said.

The study also involved 264 mostly white, female undergraduate students from large public U.S. universities. In one experiment, students rated the innocence of people ranging from infants to 25-year-olds who were black, white or an unidentified race. The students judged children up to 9 years old as equally innocent regardless of race, but considered black children significantly less innocent than other children in every age group beginning at age 10, the researchers found.

The students were also shown photographs alongside descriptions of various crimes and asked to assess the age and innocence of white, black or Latino boys ages 10 to 17. The students overestimated the age of blacks by an average of 4.5 years and found them more culpable than whites or Latinos, particularly when the boys were matched with serious crimes, the study found. Researchers used questionnaires to assess the participants' prejudice and dehumanization of blacks. They found that participants who implicitly associated blacks with apes thought the black children were older and less innocent.

In another experiment, students first viewed either a photo of an ape or a large cat and then rated black and white youngsters in terms of perceived innocence and need for protection as children. Those who looked at the ape photo gave black children lower ratings and estimated that black children were significantly older than their actual ages, particularly if the child had been accused of a felony rather than a misdemeanor.

"The evidence shows that perceptions of the essential nature of children can be affected by race, and for black children, this can mean they lose the protection afforded by assumed childhood innocence well before they become adults," said co-author Matthew Jackson, PhD, also of UCLA. "With the average age overestimation for black boys exceeding four-and-a-half years, in some cases, black children may be viewed as adults when they are just 13 years old."

Article: "The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, published online Feb. 24, 2014; Phillip Atiba Goff, PhD, and Matthew Christian Jackson, PhD; University of California, Los Angeles; Brooke Allison, PhD, and Lewis Di Leone, PhD, National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Boston; Carmen Marie Culotta, PhD, Pennsylvania State University; and Natalie Ann DiTomasso, JD, University of Pennsylvania.

Phillip Atiba Goff, PhD, can be contacted by phone at (310) 206-8614 (preferred) or by email. If Goff is unavailable, contact Matthew Christian Jackson, PhD, by phone at (814) 574-9781 or by email.

The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA's membership includes more than 134,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people's lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black boys viewed as older, less innocent than Whites, research finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Black boys as young as 10 may not be viewed in the same light of childhood innocence as their white peers, but are instead more likely to be mistaken as older, be perceived as guilty and face police violence if accused of a crime.

# data[].attributes.headline
The terrible numbers that grow with each mass shooting from Washington Post

# data[].attributes.subject
The terrible numbers that grow with each mass shooting from Washington Post

# data[].attributes.headline
Emma González on Why This Generation Needs Gun Control from Teen Vogue

# data[].attributes.subject
Emma González on Why This Generation Needs Gun Control from Teen Vogue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In an exclusive op-ed for Teen Vogue's gun control issue, Parkland survivor and activist X González shares why young people are stepping up for gun control.

On Wednesday, February 14, 17 students and faculty at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, were gunned down on the campus where I also attend school. Their names were Alyssa Alhadeff, Scott Beigel, Martin Duque, Nicholas Dworet, Aaron Feis, Jaime Guttenberg, Chris Hixon, Luke Hoyer, Cara Loughran, Gina Montalto, Joaquin Oliver, Alaina Petty, Meadow Pollack, Helena Ramsay, Carmen Schentrup, Alex Schachter, and Peter Wang. Our lives and our community are forever changed due to this senseless tragedy - one we know could have been prevented.

Since that day, many fellow survivors and I have not kept quiet. We have taken the media by storm through appearances and interviews, met with state and federal lawmakers to beg them to enact much stricter gun control laws, and been joined in protest by students around the nation and the world who've held school walkouts and demonstrations that exhibit the energy and power of young people in full force.

In just a few weeks' time, we, the youth of the United States, have built a new movement to denounce gun violence and call for safety in all of our communities.

And this is only the beginning.

A Generation Raised on Violence

I was born in 1999, just a few months after 13 people were left dead after a shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado. From 1966 to the Valentine's Day that my school proved to be less than bulletproof, nearly 1,100 people have been killed in mass public shootings in the U.S.. From the deaths of 26 at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, to the 2016 massacre of mostly Latinx people at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, to the loss of 58 lives at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas last year, we've seen mass shootings play out again and again and again.

Gun violence has torn up many communities across the country, mainly due to negligence on behalf of local and national government to properly regulate access to guns, ignorance to their constituents' varying situations, and willingness to take money from organizations that very clearly do not have the best intentions for the future of the United States.

The problem of gun violence goes beyond the countless demographic differences between people. Any way you cut it, one of the biggest threats to life as a teen in the U.S. today is being shot. People have been shot to death en masse in grocery stores, movie theaters, nightclubs, and libraries, on school campuses and front porches, and at concerts - anywhere and everywhere, regardless of socioeconomic background, skin color, age, ethnicity, religion, gender, geographical location.

Young people in this country have experienced gun violence for their entire lives, only to be faced with a number of representatives and officials who have been seduced by the gun lobby or have generally failed to make effective change. The pro-gun propaganda peddled by the National Rifle Association feeds myths about gun ownership, and these myths arguably perpetuate the suffering of thousands of Americans each year.

After all of this pain and all of this death caused by gun violence, it seems as if the kids are the only ones who still have the energy to make change.

What Do We Mean When We Say "Change"?

Parkland youth are working to end gun violence through actions like the March for Our Lives event in Washington, D.C., on March 24 and the ongoing #NeverAgain movement. I'm one of them. Fed up with the apathy pervading this country, we realized that we don't need to wait around to have our voices heard or for someone else to make change - we have to be the change we need to see.

The mass walkouts held around the country on March 14, which marked the one-month anniversary of the mass shooting at our school, weren't even organized by March for Our Lives. They were efforts led by students around the world who were speaking in the most influential way they knew how: civil disobedience, marching in the streets with signs and chanting truth to power. Efforts to mobilize young voters are widespread, and many are being conducted by first-time organizers.

Students around the country have already shown commitment to doing their part. Now it's on the adults to join us.

Many companies have broken ties with the National Rifle Association, and the House of Representatives passed a bill to fund more security measures in schools. That's great, but it's not enough.

We need to digitize gun-sales records, mandate universal background checks, close gun-show loopholes and straw-man purchases, ban high-capacity magazines, and push for a comprehensive assault weapons ban with an extensive buyback system.

It would also benefit us to redefine what assault weapons are so that when we call for a ban against them, it's clear that we aren't trying to ban all guns. No one needs to use an assault weapon to protect themselves while walking home at night. No one should be allowed to use an AR-15 to strategically hunt people, which, in case anyone forgot, is what made us speak out in the first place.

Rather than engage with this logic, many are suggesting that a possible solution to increasing school safety would be arming teachers. This doesn't make any rational or logical sense. For those who don't agree, I have questions:

How would arming teachers work, logistically?

Would they have to buy their own guns, or would there be armories in schools? Would students be able to break into armories?

While teaching, would a teacher keep their weapon on their person or in a lockbox?

If it was in a lockbox on the other side of the room when a threatening person walked in, would the teacher be able to get to their gun in time?

If the threat and the teacher were in close proximity, would the threat not be able to disarm the teacher and turn the pistol on them and in turn the students?

Why would a student shooter even need to worry about metal detectors or getting patted down if they already know they can overpower the teacher and take that gun for their own use?

If the teacher wasn't in close proximity, what would stop the teacher's bullets from hitting other students who might be in the way and obscured by gunsmoke?

And since there was a resource or police officer on campus to help protect students and teachers, why didn't that stop 17 people from getting killed and 15 from getting injured on February 14?

At Stoneman Douglas, the entire shooting lasted roughly six minutes. In that time, the shooter - a former student who conducted this violence in a three-story building known as the freshman building - fired at least 100 shots, which hit walls, windows, classrooms, and 32 people. Seventeen people's lives ended far, far too soon, and each of them had ties and connections to countless other individuals, and all of those people have to grapple with the fact that these students and faculty - our friends, our teachers, our coaches, our family - are gone.

This is the reality we face as young people in America today: the constant fear of being gunned down in the places we should feel the most secure. We have grown up in this country and watched violence unfold to no resolution. We have watched people with the power and authority to make changes fail to do so.

And that's why we are stepping up. Some of us are new to this fight, but across America there are people, young and old, who have been fighting for gun safety and an end to gun violence of all kinds.

This month, Teen Vogue is dedicating its digital cover to rising voices in the gun control movement, young people who are working on the issue in different ways, all of them impacted by gun violence.

There is 21-year-old Howard University student Clifton Kinnie, who, in 2014, mobilized teenagers to organize against gun violence and register to vote after 18-year-old Mike Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Natalie Barden, a 16-year-old sophomore at Newtown High School in Connecticut, was a preteen when she lost her younger brother, Daniel, in 2012, during the Sandy Hook shooting. She's been asking for change for more than five years as part of a family that has become vocal anti-gun-violence organizers, and she is now courageously stepping up to mobilize her peers.

Jazmine Wildcat, a 14-year-old member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe, is part of a gun-owning family in Riverton, Wyoming, and she started writing letters to her lawmakers after the students were killed in Parkland. In her community, where gun ownership is considered a fact of life and a point of pride, she's bravely taking a stand as one of the few voices advocating for change in her area. Kenidra Woods, a 17-year-old junior from St. Louis, was already advocating for more discussion of self-harm and mental health among teens before Parkland, after which she sprang into action to help conduct a walkout at her school in February in solidarity. She and her classmates faced resistance from administrators after students were barred from returning to class, and she's since become one of the most vocal young activists in this nationwide movement.

Nza-Ari Khepra of Chicago founded Project Orange Tree after a friend, 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, was shot and killed in 2013. She's now 21 and a student at Columbia, continuing her efforts to end gun violence; her smart work was the inspiration for the nationwide "Wear Orange" campaign.

Then there are those of us representing Parkland: Fellow Stoneman Douglas student Nick Joseph lost one of his best friends, Joaquin Oliver, on February 14, and is speaking out in his name by organizing and marching, rising to a challenge no 16-year-old in mourning should have to face. Sarah Chadwick, 16, has been organizing the March for Our Lives event set for March 24, and she is loudly denouncing critics like the NRA's Dana Loesch on Twitter. Jaclyn Corin, 17, who lost her friend Jaimie Guttenberg on February 14, planned a trip to meet lawmakers at the very start of the movement and has been a crucial member of #NeverAgain.

We Stoneman Douglas students may have woken up only recently from our sheltered lives to fight this fight, but we stand in solidarity with those who have struggled before us, and we will fight alongside them moving forward to enact change and make life survivable for all young people. People who have been fighting for this for too long, others who were never comfortable enough to openly talk about their experiences with gun violence, or still others who were never listened to when opening up about their experiences with gun violence or were afraid to speak out - these are the people we are fighting with and for.

The media afforded a group of high school students the opportunity to wedge our foot in the door, but we aren't going through this alone. As a group, and as a movement, it's vital that we acknowledge and utilize our privilege, use our platforms to spread the names of the dead and the injured, promote ideas that can help spread kindness rather than hostility, support those who aren't being heard, take our voices and use them together with the megaphones provided.

We the Wounded of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Future, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common People, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Generations to Come, do ordain and establish this March for the United States of America.
This story is a part of Teen Vogue's ongoing coverage on gun violence and the growing movement for gun control. Be sure to check out the other features: Meet the Young Activists Fighting to End Gun Violence A Roundtable Talk With 5 Young Gun Control Activists Where to Join the March For Our Lives How the NRA Came to Influence America The Truth About Mental Illness and Gun Violence How to Survive a School Shooting Real Students Read the Haunting Text Messages Sent During Mass Shootings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In an exclusive op-ed for Teen Vogue's gun control issue, Parkland survivor and activist X González shares why young people are stepping up for gun control.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Gun Violence Can’t Be Our New Normal from Dan Gross, TED Talk

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Gun Violence Can’t Be Our New Normal from Dan Gross, TED Talk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Please [contact us](https://www.ted.com/contact) and let us know what happened.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Solution to Gun Violence Found in US History from David Farrell, TED Talk

# data[].attributes.subject
A Solution to Gun Violence Found in US History from David Farrell, TED Talk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A solution to gun violence found in US history

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guns weren’t always the contentious issue they are today in the US. Forty years ago, guns were primarily used for sport and recreation, and mass shootings were a rarity. Much has changed since then, and while there’s a lot of debate around how to put an end to gun violence, there has yet to be a solution that everyone can agree on. Gun safety advocate David Farrell thinks he has the answer, and takes us through America’s history to get there.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

# data[].attributes.headline
s Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change? From ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.subject
s Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change? From ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Human Activity Responsible for Climate Change? 13 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The pro side argues the rising levels of greenhouse gases is from burning fossil fuels, the con side argues the planet is capable of absorbing those increases.

# data[].attributes.headline
If You Won't, We Will: Youth Action on Climate from Stitcher

# data[].attributes.subject
If You Won't, We Will: Youth Action on Climate from Stitcher

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Music and Podcasts, Free and On-Demand | Pandora

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Play the songs, albums, playlists and podcasts you love on the all-new Pandora. Sign up for a subscription plan to stream ad-free and on-demand. Listen on your mobile phone, desktop, TV, smart speakers or in the car.

# data[].attributes.headline
Electricity Map: Mapping the climate impact of electricity from Electricity Map

# data[].attributes.subject
Electricity Map: Mapping the climate impact of electricity from Electricity Map

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Live 24/7 CO₂ emissions of electricity consumption

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Electricity Maps is a live 24/7 visualization of where your electricity comes from and how much CO2 was emitted to produce it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This website saves small pieces of information (cookies) on your device to provide you with an improved user experience, and to allow us to analyse our website's traffic. You can disable the usage of cookies in your browser settings. If you continue to browse this website without changing your settings, you consent to the use of cookies and other similar technologies. Please visit our Privacy Policy page for further details.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This website saves small pieces of information (cookies) on your device to provide you with an improved user experience, and to allow us to analyse our website's traffic. You can disable the usage of cookies in your browser settings. If you continue to browse this website without changing your settings, you consent to the use of cookies and other similar technologies.

# data[].attributes.headline
"CHASING ICE" captures largest glacier calving ever filmed from Exposure labs

# data[].attributes.subject
"CHASING ICE" captures largest glacier calving ever filmed from Exposure labs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"CHASING ICE" captures largest glacier calving ever filmed - OFFICIAL VIDEO

# data[].attributes.headline
What would Jesus do? Talking with evangelicals about climate change from the Guardian

# data[].attributes.subject
What would Jesus do? Talking with evangelicals about climate change from the Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I was, frankly, nervous about speaking to people of faith in the south about climate change. I wrestled with my own preconceived notions and past experiences, and was surprised when conversations took inspiring, if not transcendent, turns.

Secular as I am now, I still think fondly of my childhood minister, Dr Lehman, who loved college basketball and Honda Accords (he drove 13 of them during his lifetime). At the conclusion of each Lakeside Baptist service, he'd call the eastern North Carolina congregation to action.

"Go forth," he said as the organ began to play, "and be involved in the world."

My family later moved to Spartanburg, South Carolina, and my high school experience felt ripped from the pages of the Footloose script. Local parents disowned gay sons; classmates openly questioned the science of evolution in biology class; Young Life leaders plastered an Abstinence Pledge on the wall of our public school cafeteria.

My frustration from those years has at times stopped me from reaching out to those in the faith-based community, especially regarding political issues like climate change. I'm aware of my own bias, the way it was formed by negative experiences, and how it limits my understanding of believers and their choices. This realization helps me understand why believers might in turn have problems connecting with someone like me.

But if we're going to address climate change in time to prevent catastrophic results, we're going to do it by taking cooperative action with those with whom we disagree. I find myself wondering if similar discussions are happening in faith-based communities, and why there hasn't been a more palpable response to climate change among people of faith in the south.

While climate change scenarios have all the hallmarks of biblical narrative - violent storms, epic floods, plagues, resource scarcity, the displacement of people - it's considered liberal political terrain. Scott Coleman, a practicing Baptist and the amiable environmental manager of Little St Simons Island, a mostly undeveloped strip of shoreline off the coast of Georgia, tells me that "environmental stewardship is often associated with liberal politics, thus looked upon negatively".

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

Genesis 2:15

The political power of the pulpit is undeniable, even in the post-Billy Graham south, where in many states nearly half of all citizens attend church services.

I can't help but imagine the sheer impact a faith-based movement could have on expediting climate action. Scott Coleman agrees. "I think that if our faith leaders in the south were more outspoken about the importance of creation care, it would go a long way in helping to depoliticize environmental issues in our region," he says. "And if we could depoliticize environmental stewardship in the south, imagine the progress we could make with elevating environmental stewardship in southern culture."

I spoke with people of faith in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia, and it became clear that the primary barrier to climate action is the fact that it's been yoked with the liberal agenda. Climate activist and author Anna Jane Joyner, whose father is the pastor of a megachurch in North Carolina, writes that she grew up lumping "environmentalists in with hippies and liberals and all the other people who were probably going to hell".

The shoreline in Buxton on North Carolina's Hatteras Island. Photograph: Steve Earley/AP

Dr Lucas Johnston, a professor of religion and environment at Wake Forest University, explains that "there is a longstanding antipathy toward environmental sentiments in Christian, and especially evangelical circles, because they have, for centuries, been imagined as pernicious and dangerous, and possibly bordering on paganism."

I asked former six-term South Carolina Republican congressman Bob Inglis why discussing climate change is so difficult in the south. A proponent of growing the eco-right and setting the free market upon the challenges of climate change, he called the environmental movement a bird with a left wing so large it can't fly straight. Climate change is "rarely talked about in the language of conservatism", he explained. "If you want someone to have a conversion moment, it helps for them to hear it in their own language, from someone they trust."

Inglis has been trying to start the conversation in conservative southern circles since having his own conversion moment on a trip to Antarctica in 2006. A scientist drilled into the ice, and Inglis saw, firsthand, the Industrial Revolution's impact on the ice record, which revealed a long period of stability with a sudden uptick in carbon dioxide levels. He accepted then that burning fossil fuels changed the chemistry of the atmosphere. He was later booed at public events for stating his belief in climate change.

We reject the notion that God gave us the Earth to do with whatever we please.

A Lutheran worshipper from Atlantic Beach

While in office, Inglis introduced a Raise Wages, Cut Carbon bill. Though grounded in science and conservative economic principles, his efforts were seen as subversive by Tea Party opponents, who essentially implied his bill would destroy civilization. "I had crossed the line of orthodoxy," he said.

There's a perceived social and political cost to speaking up about climate issues among people of faith in the south. Roughly half of the southerners I spoke with felt that people in the south avoided talking about climate change altogether because it was awkward and politically divisive. Mary Beene, a pastor in Savannah, notes that "in our congregation, it was a more controversial topic than race or sexuality". She observed that some women in the south who believed in climate change worried "it simply would not be polite to challenge what the men ... were saying in public."

Indeed, white male evangelicals are still dominating the conversation and decision-making power structures.

Watch, for example, this clip from a 2014 GOP Senate primary debate in North Carolina, where four contenders, including Senator Thom Tillis, deny that manmade activity influences climate change in under one minute. Tillis, whom the Center for Responsive Politics reports as having received over $260,000 from oil, gas and coal interests, won the Senate seat, with 63% of his voters identifying as evangelicals or born-again Christians. Ninety-five percent of them were white.

According to Pew, 77% of Hispanic Catholics are likely to say human activity has contributed to the Earth's warming. Religiously unaffiliated (64%) and black Protestants (56%) are also likely to tie climate change to human activity. Pew points out that "fewer white mainline Protestants (41%) view climate change as primarily due to human activity ... white evangelical Protestants are least likely to hold this view."

When Rabbi Rachael Bregman moved to Brunswick, Georgia, she was told: hurricanes don't happen here. Then she evacuated for both Irma and Matthew. "Both of the evacuations were on top of the holy days where we say the words of the Unataneh Tokef," she tells me. "It's a prayer which asks, 'who by fire, who by water ... who by drowning' regarding the end of one's life. Those questions felt very real and not metaphorical."

Her synagogue is 12 feet above sea level and a half-mile from the ocean's edge. During recent hurricanes, they "evacuated our five Torah scrolls, locked the doors and hoped for the best for our 130-year-old building. What has surprised me," she says, "is how little has changed and how little environmental activism sprang up as a result."

Bregman, like many I talked to, has witnessed climate change firsthand and is eager to see more responsiveness in the faith-based community. She has made personal changes, like switching to an electric car; greening up at the synagogue; and offering a sermon on climate change.

Tony Lankford, the senior pastor at the First Baptist church in Saint Simons, has also improved the church's energy and water use, and organized a Coastal Green Team Summit for faith leaders to discuss climate change.

There is a lack of emphasis on climate change in the South due to a lack of knowledge. We often experience it but, we don't know how to articulate what we experience.

A United Church of Christ follower, Birmingham, AL

Lankford feels that "regardless of political or theological leanings, there is agreement upon the basic tenet that God formed all of this beauty around us, and scripture [Genesis 1-2] gives us a responsibility to be stewards of that creation. For me, thus, mismanagement and abuse of creation is not only immoral or unethical, but is sinful."

The majority of southern believers I spoke to reported never hearing climate change mentioned in a sermon, but, like Lankford, could ground feelings about protecting the Earth in scripture, and felt that there was a strong moral imperative to protect the planet and its inhabitants.

Several mentioned Dr Katharine Wilkinson's book Between God and Green: How Evangelicals Are Cultivating a Middle Ground on Climate Change as helping them articulate a scriptural basis for taking climate action in the future.

When Bob Inglis - someone with whom I probably disagree on several core issues - spoke with reverence about seeing an Australian scientist evangelize about the natural world at the Great Barrier Reef, I could recognize his passion for the natural world as my own. Sometimes, common ground gets lost in semantics.

Inglis gave me the rational and the emotional case for his conversion from skeptic to climate change believer. The emotional case is what has stayed with me most since our talk, and is one I hope other skeptics manage to hear from their children, like Inglis did.

His son once told him, lovingly: "Be relevant to my future. Show some courage."
A note from the author: I started this column with the intention of joining a conversation I knew was already happening in the south, and your emails helped make that a reality last week. I heard from retired marine biologists in Arkansas, philanthropists in Georgia, theologists in Virginia, poets and boat captains in Louisiana, lawyers in Florida, clean air activists in Mississippi. I also heard from climate change deniers, brand marketers, and ... an old boyfriend. I want to witness and listen to the south as it really is - not just how I want it to be. I'm doing my best to stay curious and open-minded and look forward to your continued responses. I hit the road in January, with an eye toward Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. What should I see there?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What would Jesus do? Talking with evangelicals about climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As part of our new column about the American south and climate change, we go towards Christians who have been resistant to ideas of environmental stewardship - perhaps it's a message they need to hear in their own terms

# data[].attributes.headline
Not all environmentalists eat tofu: the hunters fighting climate change from the Guardian

# data[].attributes.subject
Not all environmentalists eat tofu: the hunters fighting climate change from the Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I first read about Bald Knob, Arkansas, in 2010, after thousands of poisoned blackbirds dropped dead from the sky in nearby Beebe. On first look, Bald Knob has an unsettling aesthetic: a sparsely populated town, a bygone agricultural zone with toppled silos, old trailers, taxidermy businesses, boarded-up shops and a Waffle House. It's a narrative cliche to present a rural place below the Mason-Dixon line this way, yet the scenery fits the bill.

I've lived in places like these, where a casual observer sees a weathered town and locals just see home. I proceed with caution anyway. I'm also unsettled by news reports of armed white nationalists marching at the capitol building in nearby Little Rock. I know this is how a lot of people experience the rural south - sorting through stereotypes and history as they go, wondering how much of the old south is present in the new.

The 12,900-acre Bald Knob Refuge, which sits about 60 miles north-east of Little Rock, is a blend of both the old and new south. It's a former rice farm that has grown rice and soybeans in order to provide much-needed habitat and fuel for migratory waterfowl like pintail ducks and snow geese since 1993.

A half-mile into the refuge, the truck ahead of me spooks an unfathomable cloud of waterfowl. Hundreds of thousandsof ducks rise from the wetlands, calling and circling. It's breathtaking to witness. Later, a huge flock of lesser snow geese passes above me. My heart pounds; it's moving to hear so many wingbeats overhead, to see the formations of a thousand white birds in the blue sky.

Another truck comes by. The man rolls down his truck window and asks, "You OK?"

"Fine," I tell him, climbing down from the roof of my rental car, and showing him my camera. "Watching birds. You?" I ask even though I can see his rifle in the back.

"Out scouting hunting spots," he says, flashing a charming smile. "You can get a better view if you take the road 'round that way." He points me toward a new route, then takes off.

The relationship between hunters and conservation has always surprised me. Yet it's often imperative to the success of major initiatives in the south, thanks to the influence of the not-for-profit organization Ducks Unlimited, which has a worldwide membership of 700,000 and has helped conserve over 13m acres of habitat. There are more than 34 million sportsmen and women in the United States.

Sportsmen and traditional environmentalists aren't always mutually exclusive, or easy co-conspirators. But, there is a critical need for information to flow between those on the ground and those in policy. In order to address the urgent realities of climate change, traditional environmentalists must continue to find ways to communicate and partner with non-traditional audiences: hunters, big agriculture, fishermen, corporations and loggers.

I wanted to talk to people in the south who already work on these frontlines, and are able to build bridges between seemingly disparate audiences.

Charlie Phillips, clammer and entrepreneur, is one of those men who's lived several lives, as a fishmonger, horse trader and shrimper.

"I'm one of those rare Republicans that believe that if you don't take care of your environment, your environment can't take care of you," he says. Phillips, the owner of Sapelo Sea Farms in Georgia, makes his living growing clams, so water quality is crucial to him, which is why he serves on boards and tries to help scientists and fishermen find common ground.

He's frank about climate change and how it's affecting his industry. He talks about the onset of "king tides", and fish stock moving north as waters warm. He was working on the back of a shrimp boat in 1968 when Hurricane Camille hit. "I saw the big ships washed up on shore," he tells me. "I've seen what big hurricanes can do. They're worse now. Things aren't what they used to be."

"Listen," he says. "Fishermen just want to be able to catch what they want to catch and be left alone."

He says working fishermen end up not trusting scientists because the scientific reports don't match up with what they witness firsthand on the water every day. Reports from scientists, he says, "feel three or four years behind what the fishermen see". He thinks it's crucial for fishermen and scientists to interact and learn more from each other. "We've gotten really good at throwing rocks at each other," he tells me. "But we need to give up on throwing rocks. It's not conducive to fixing problems."

Phillips is focused on what he cares most about: water. He's evangelical about it. "It affects everything," he says. "Wildlife, business, eco-tourism." He bought his father's restaurant, the Fish Dock, and uses the menus to educate customers about local water testing results. "I took poetic license," he tells me, laughing. "I don't use the word 'fecal', just 'water quality'."

The following day I talk with Dr Zakiya Leggett, a forester and professor at North Carolina State University whose research focuses on carbon sequestration and soil ecology. She talks about her empathy for freshmen, many of whom tell her at the beginning of her class through a pre-course survey that they don't believe in climate change. They tell her she shouldn't try to change their minds.

"We have to remember," she says, her tone compassionate, "especially if these students are coming fresh from home, that they haven't had time to form their own opinions." She adds, "Maybe I can't impress my 'opinions,' but I will give them the facts, like graphs of temperatures rising."

Leggett estimates that half of her students are coming from a rural environment. Born in Memphis, she recalls the difficult time she had adjusting when she went from the Tuskegee University to Duke University. She remembers struggling with elitism herself.

Now she mentors students through this vulnerable transition, and is able to forge connections with first-generation college students and conservative students, as well as students of color - all groups who might otherwise struggle to join conversations about the scientific realities of climate change.

Dr Todd Merendino, the manager of conservation programs in the Ducks Unlimited Texas field office, negotiates strategic partnerships with wildlife state agencies, agricultural producers, hunters, biologists, private landowners, petrochemical companies and the oil industry. A hunter and fisherman, he has a practical, outcomes-focused approach to his work.

"Our mission is waterfowl and habitats," he says. "I look for symbiotic relationships. Common ground. Common goals."

He speaks with corporations about responsible growth and convinces them that "wetlands and marshes are your insurance policy against flooding". He ticks off the nature of their conversations: flood storage capacity, coastal restoration projects, storm surge abatement, initiatives that keep the marsh healthy.

Ducks Unlimited recently completed a beneficial dredge use project near Port Arthur, Texas, which will move 2m cubic yards of dredge material to restore approximately 1,300 acres of the Salt Bayou Marsh watershed, an important migratory bird flyway recently degraded by hurricane damage. It's generally more expensive to utilize dredge material in this manner, he says, but smarter to move it to a place where it serves a purpose.

Merendino's work has large-scale outcomes, and with that objective in mind he welcomes chances to partner with corporations and big agriculture. "If the rice industry went away," he points out, "the amount of waterfowl habitat loss would be insurmountable, impossible to overcome."

After seeing the beauty and importance of the Bald Knob Refuge, the scale, necessity and complexity of this work impresses me.

It's easy to be an armchair activist in 2019, or make condescending online comments about the state of climate change activism in the south. But it's much more difficult to swim against the ideological current, or to operate between two exasperating worlds in a hands-on way, in search of real impact.

There is certainly more opportunity for cooperation and partnership, and places where more traditional environmentalists like me could find common ground with a hunter in Arkansas or a fisherman in Georgia, so that we could, quite frankly, save what we both love.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Not all environmentalists eat tofu: the hunters fighting climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Progressives should think twice about who their allies are. Conservatives, especially the hunters among them, can be environmentalists too

# data[].attributes.headline
The world struck a major climate deal in Poland. So, what’s in it? From Public Radio International

# data[].attributes.subject
The world struck a major climate deal in Poland. So, what’s in it? From Public Radio International

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By the time the final meeting of this year's global climate summit was gaveled into session in Katowice, Poland, it was past 9 p.m. on Saturday. Exhausted negotiators were more than 24 hours past their deadline, and workmen were already starting to disassemble the conference venue around them.

But Michał Kurtyka, the Polish official presiding over the meeting, told delegates it was worth it.

"You have worked on this package for three years," he said. "Every single step forward is a big achievement. And through this package, you have made a thousand little steps forward, together. You can feel proud."

Soon after, nearly 200 countries unanimously agreed to new rules governing international action on global warming - and kept alive an international effort to combat climate change that has often seemed on rocky ground.

The accord is a follow-up to the breakthrough 2015 Paris Agreement, in which countries committed to keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. The "rule book" adopted in Katowice sets out how countries should measure their greenhouse gas emissions, report on emissions cuts and hold each other accountable.

"The rule book puts meat on the bones of Paris, enabling it to operate," said Sue Biniaz, who was the state department's top lawyer on climate change for decades and helped draft the Paris Agreement. "It would have been hard to imagine this extensive a rule book a few short months ago."

That's in part because of the political backdrop. President Donald Trump has said he will pull the US out of the agreement as soon as he can, in 2020, and delegates worry that Brazil's new president could follow the US out the door. Meanwhile, key members of the European Union, including the UK, Germany and France are distracted by politics at home. And the US and China, who together drove the Paris Agreement, are in a standoff over trade.

Related: US a wild card as climate negotiators race to meet Friday deadline

"Who would have thought five years ago that you would have China, the US, Brazil and Europe all committing to a binding set of rules?" said Jennifer Morgan, the head of Greenpeace International.

But for Morgan and many others, the agreement in Katowice did not go far enough. Advocates pointed out that pledges made by countries so far won't cut greenhouse gas emissions enough to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. Morgan said it was a major failure that the final agreement didn't include a strong commitment that countries would increase their ambitions as fast as the current science indicates is necessary to avoid the worst warming.

"A rule book alone is not going to get us there," Morgan said. "We have a climate emergency right now. And I expect leaders to take that seriously and go beyond their comfort zones to stand up for the most vulnerable in their own countries and around the world."

What's in it?

Under the Paris Agreement, countries must set a goal for cutting greenhouse gas emissions - and then every five years, they must report on what they've achieved, compare global progress to the overall goals of the Paris Agreement and make new pledges to reduce emissions even more.

The agreement was designed to ratchet up emissions cuts over time. But that process only works if countries can hold each other accountable, said Camilla Born, of the climate think tank E3G.

The Katowice package sets that framework, creating standards for reporting emissions. The agreement also includes transparency guidelines so that countries can verify each other's progress - guidelines that the US and China were credited with jointly negotiating.

It also solved one of the long-running points of contention in climate talks by ensuring that all countries - developed and developing countries alike - will eventually face the same reporting standards. China and developing nations had resisted a common standard for years, arguing that it was unfair to hold them to standards they might not have the capacity to meet.

"The fact that we have one set of rules is really important," Born said, adding that it lets countries essentially compare apples to apples.

The agreement also includes a process for rich countries to increase the amount of money they will pay to help poorer countries adapt to climate change. Developing countries say current commitments are still nowhere near enough, but Born said it's a start.

"They'll provide greater clarity and predictability on that finance," Born said. "What that means is developing countries can plan to deliver climate action with the certainty that money will come and help them do that."

What's not in it?

Many countries were infuriated when the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait blocked language "welcoming" a recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that concluded the world must limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius or face catastrophic impacts. Ultimately, the final agreement included weaker language, welcoming the "timely completion" of the report.

Speaking for a coalition of the world's least developed countries, Ethiopia's representative said the US and its allies were seeking to undermine science that indicates more ambitious action is needed.

"It is unfathomable that while women, men and children all over the world suffer at the hands of climate change, a small handful of parties refused to welcome the science that confirms the devastation we are already experiencing in our countries," he said.

The final agreement also postponed key decisions on how to set up markets for trading international carbon credits after Brazil demanded changes that other nations argued would create accounting loopholes.

"No rules are better than bad rules, and that's what we went with," said E3G's Born.

What's next?

The next big milestone will come in September 2019. That's when UN Secretary-General António Guterres plans to convene a meeting rallying countries to step up their targets under the Paris Agreement. Advocates hope countries will announce more ambitious pledges at the meeting.

In a statement read by UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa, Guterres told delegates, "Climate change is still running faster than us."

Having agreed to the rule book, Guterres wrote, countries must turn their attention to redoubling their efforts: "From now on, my five priorities will be: ambition, ambition, ambition, ambition, ambition."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The world struck a major climate deal in Poland. So, what's in it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Negotiators created rules to help the world meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. But the UN climate chief still told the delegation, "Climate change is still running faster than us."

# data[].attributes.headline
The climate change lawsuit that could stop the U.S. government from supporting fossil fuels from CBS 60 Minutes

# data[].attributes.subject
The climate change lawsuit that could stop the U.S. government from supporting fossil fuels from CBS 60 Minutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
/ CBS News

Of all the cases working their way through the federal court system none is more interesting or potentially more life changing than Juliana v. United States. To quote one federal judge, "This is no ordinary lawsuit." It was filed back in 2015 on behalf of a group of kids who are trying to get the courts to block the U.S. government from continuing the use of fossil fuels. They say it's causing climate change, endangering their future and violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property. When the lawsuit began hardly anyone took it seriously, including the government's lawyers, who have since watched the Supreme Court reject two of their motions to delay or dismiss the case. Four years in, it is still very much alive, in part because the plaintiffs have amassed a body of evidence that will surprise even the skeptics and have forced the government to admit that the crisis is real.

The case was born here in Eugene, Oregon, a tree-hugger's paradise, and one of the cradles of environmental activism in the United States. The lead plaintiff, University of Oregon student Kelsey Juliana, was only five weeks old when her parents took her to her first rally to protect spotted owls. Today, her main concern is climate change, drought and the growing threat of wildfires in the surrounding Cascade Mountains.

Kelsey Juliana: There was a wildfire season that was so intense, we were advised not to go outside. The particulate matter in the smoke was literally off the charts. I mean, it was so bad it was past severe, in terms of danger to health.

Steve Kroft: And you think that's because of climate change.

Kelsey Juliana: That's what scientists tell me.

It's not just scientists. Even the federal government now acknowledges in its response to the lawsuit that the effects of climate change are already happening and likely to get worse, especially for young people who will have to deal with them for the long term.

"The government has known for over 50 years that burning fossil fuels would cause climate change. And they don't dispute that we are in a danger zone on climate change."

Steve Kroft: How important is this case to you?

Kelsey Juliana: This case is everything. This is the climate case. We have everything to lose, if we don't act on climate change right now, my generation and all the generations to come.

She was 19 when the lawsuit was filed and the oldest of 21 plaintiffs. They come from ten different states and all claim to be affected or threatened by the consequences of climate change. The youngest, Levi Draheim, is in sixth grade.

Steve Kroft: You're 11 years old, and you're suing the United States government, that's not what most 11-year-olds do, right?

Levi Draheim: Yeah...

He's lived most of his life on the beaches of a barrier island in Florida that's a mile wide and barely above sea level.

Steve Kroft: What's your biggest fear about this island?

Levi Draheim: I fear that I won't have a home here in the future.

Steve Kroft: That the island will be gone.

Levi Draheim: Yeah. That the island will be underwater because of climate change.

Steve Kroft: So you feel like you've got a stake in this.

Levi Draheim: Yes.

The plaintiffs were recruited from environmental groups across the country by Julia Olson, an oregon lawyer, and the executive director of a non-profit legal organization called "Our Children's Trust." She began constructing the case eight years ago out of this spartan space now dominated by this paper diorama that winds its way through the office.

Steve Kroft: So what is this?

Julia Olson: So this is a timeline that we put together...

It documents what and when past U.S. administrations knew about the connection between fossil fuels and climate change. The timeline goes back 50 years, beginning with the presidency of Lyndon Johnson.

Julia Olson: So during President Johnson's administration, they issued a report in 1965 that talked about climate change being a catastrophic threat.

Whether it was a Democrat or a Republican in office, Olson says, there was an awareness of the potential dangers of carbon dioxide emissions.

Julia Olson: Every president knew that burning fossil fuels was causing climate change.

Fifty years of evidence has been amassed by Olson and her team, 36,000 pages in all, to be used in court.

Julia Olson: Our government, at the highest levels, knew and was briefed on it regularly by the national security community, by the scientific community. They have known for a very long time that it was a big threat.

Steve Kroft: Has the government disputed that government officials have known about this for more than 50 years and been told and warned about it for 50 years?

Julia Olson: No. They admit that the government has known for over 50 years that burning fossil fuels would cause climate change. And they don't dispute that we are in a danger zone on climate change. And they don't dispute that climate change is a national security threat and a threat to our economy and a threat to people's lives and safety. They do not dispute any of those facts of the case.

The legal proceedings have required the government to make some startling admissions in court filings. It now acknowledges that human activity - in particular, elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases - is likely to have been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-1900s... That global carbon dioxide concentrations reached levels unprecedented for at least 2.6 million years... That climate change is increasing the risk of loss of life and the extinction of many species and is associated with increases in hurricane intensity, the frequency of intense storms, heavy precipitation, the loss of sea ice and rising sea levels. And the government acknowledges that climate change's effects on agriculture will have consequences for food scarcity.

Steve Kroft: So you've got them with their own words.

Julia Olson: We have them with their own words. It's really the clearest, most compelling evidence I've ever had in any case I've litigated in over 20 years.

The lawsuit claims the executive and legislative branches of government have proven incapable of dealing with climate change. It argues that the government has failed in its obligation to protect the nation's air, water, forests and coast lines. And it petitions the federal courts to intervene and force the government to come up with a plan that would wean the country off fossil fuels by the middle of this century.

Steve Kroft: You're just saying, "Do it. We don't care how."

Julia Olson: Do it well and do it in the timeframe that it needs to be done.

Steve Kroft: You're talking about a case that could change economics in this country.

Julia Olson: For the better.

Steve Kroft: Well, you say it changes the economy for the better, but other people would say it would cause huge disruption.

Julia Olson: If we don't address climate change in this country, economists across the board say that we are in for economic crises that we have never seen before.

The lawsuit was first filed during the final years of the Obama administration in this federal courthouse in Eugene.

Steve Kroft: Did they take this case seriously when you filed it?

Julia Olson: I think in the beginning they thought they could very quickly get the case dismissed.

In November 2016, a federal judge stunned the government by denying its motion to dismiss the case and ruling it could proceed to trial. In what may become a landmark decision, Judge Ann Aiken wrote, "Exercising my reasoned judgment, I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society."

Steve Kroft: A federal judge ever said that before?

Julia Olson: No judge had ever written that before.

The opinion was groundbreaking because the courts have never recognized a constitutional right to a stable climate.

Ann Carlson: That's a big stretch for a court.

Ann Carlson is a professor of environmental law at UCLA. Like almost everyone else in the legal community, she was certain the case was doomed.

Ann Carlson: There's no constitutional provision that says the that environment should be protected.

Steve Kroft: Why is the idea that the people of the United States have a right to a stable environment such a radical idea?

Ann Carlson: Well, I think that Judge Aiken actually does a very good job of saying it's not radical to ask the government to protect the health, and the lives and the property of this current generation of kids. Look, If you can't have your life protected by government policies that save the planet, then what's the point of having a Constitution?

Steve Kroft: How significant is this case?

Ann Carlson: Well, if the plaintiffs won, it'd be massive, particularly if they won what they're asking for, which is get the federal government out of the business of in any way subsidizing fossil fuels and get them into the business of dramatically curtailing greenhouse gases in order to protect the children who are the plaintiffs in order to create a safe climate. That would be enormous.

So enormous that the Trump administration, which is now defending the case, has done everything it can to keep the trial from going forward. It's appealed Judge Aiken's decision three times to the ninth circuit court in California and twice to the Supreme Court. Each time it's failed.

Julia Olson: They don't want it to go to trial.

Steve Kroft: Why?

Julia Olson: Because they will lose on the evidence that will be presented at trial.

Steve Kroft: And that's why they don't want one.

Julia Olson: That's why they don't want one. They know that once you enter that courtroom and your witnesses take the oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth the facts are the facts and alternative facts are perjury. And so, all of these claims and tweets about climate change not being real, that doesn't hold up in a court of law.

The Justice Department declined our request for an interview, but in court hearings, in briefs, it's called the lawsuit misguided, unprecedented and unconstitutional. It argues that energy policy is the legal responsibility of Congress and the White House, not a single judge in Oregon. And while climate change is real it's also a complicated global problem that was not caused and cannot be solved by just the United States government.

In other words, it's not responsible.

Steve Kroft: Why is the federal government responsible for global warming? I mean it doesn't produce any carbon dioxide. How are they causing it?

Julia Olson: They're causing it through their actions of subsidizing the fossil fuel energy system, permitting every aspect of our fossil fuel energy system, and by allowing for extraction of fossil fuels from our federal public lands. We are the largest oil and gas producer in the world now because of decisions our federal government has made.

Steve Kroft: What about the Chinese government? What about the Indian government?

Julia Olson: Clearly, it's not just the United States that has caused climate change but the United States is responsible for 25 percent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide that has accumulated over the many decades.

Julia Olson is confident they're going to prevail in court. Ann Carlson and most of the legal community still think it's a longshot, but she says she's been wrong about this case every step of the way.

Ann Carlson: Courts have asked governments to do bold things. The best example would be Brown versus the Board of Education, when the court ordered schools to desegregate with all deliberate speed. So there have been court decisions that have asked governments to do very dramatic things. This might be the biggest.

Steve Kroft: You've been stunned by how far this case has gotten. Why has it gotten this far?

Ann Carlson: I think there are several reasons this case has actually withstood motions to dismiss. I think the first is that the lawyers have crafted the case in a way that's very compelling. You have a number of kids who are very compelling plaintiffs who are experiencing the harms of climate change now and will experience the harms of climate change much more dramatically as they get older. I think the hard question here is the law.

The next oral arguments in Juliana v. United States are scheduled for June in Portland. But whatever happens next will certainly be appealed. Two-thousand miles away, in the aptly named town of Rayne, Louisiana, the family of one of the plaintiffs, 15-year-old Jayden Foytlin, is still rebuilding from the last disaster in 2016 that dumped 18 inches of rain on Rayne and Southern Louisiana in just 48 hours.

Jayden Foytlin: That's just something that shouldn't happen. You can't really deny that it, climate change has something to do with it. And you can't deny that it's something that we have to pay attention to. I'm not sure if most of Louisiana, of South Louisiana is going to be here, that's just a really big worry of mine.

For the foreseeable future, it's impossible to predict when and how the storms and the lawsuit are likely to end.
Produced by Draggan Mihailovich. Associate producers, Katie Brennan and Chrissy Jones
Trending News

Steve Kroft

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The climate change lawsuit that could stop the U.S. government from supporting fossil fuels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 kids alleges the U.S. government knowingly failed to protect them from climate change. If the plaintiffs win, it could mean massive changes for the use of fossil fuels

# data[].attributes.headline
Tinker vs. Des Moines, Interview with John Tinker from C-Span

# data[].attributes.subject
Tinker vs. Des Moines, Interview with John Tinker from C-Span

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
| Clip Of Legacies of Supreme Court Landmark Cases

John Tinker talks about events leading up to this Supreme Court case that involved him and his sister Mary Beth Tinker as well as its legacy.

Report Video Issue

Javascript must be enabled in order to access C-SPAN videos.

People in this video

Karen Korematsu Co-Founder and Executive Director Korematsu (Fred T.) Institute

Vince Stango Chief Operating Officer National Constitution Center

More People

Hosting Organization

More Videos From

AHTV - Constitution Day Events

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
John Tinker talks about events leading up to this Supreme Court case that involved him and his sister Mary Beth Tinker as well as its legacy.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Scientific Importance of Free Speech from Quillette

# data[].attributes.subject
The Scientific Importance of Free Speech from Quillette

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Scientific Importance of Free Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These are merely tools that help us to accomplish a far greater mission, which is to choose between rival narratives, in the vicious, no-holds-barred battle of ideas that we call "science".

# data[].attributes.headline
What Does Free Speech Mean? from United States Courts

# data[].attributes.subject
What Does Free Speech Mean? from United States Courts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech."

Freedom of speech includes the right:

Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war ("Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.").
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).

To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Disclaimer: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for use in educational activities only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on legislation.

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.

# data[].attributes.headline
Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh, The 15-Year-Old Suing the Government over Climate Change from VICE(strong language)

# data[].attributes.subject
Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh, The 15-Year-Old Suing the Government over Climate Change from VICE(strong language)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Teenager Suing the US Government over Climate Change

# data[].attributes.headline
Teen Depression and Anxiety: Why the Kids Are Not Alright

# data[].attributes.subject
Teen Depression and Anxiety: Why the Kids Are Not Alright

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The first time Faith-Ann Bishop cut herself, she was in eighth grade. It was 2 in the morning, and as her parents slept, she sat on the edge of the tub at her home outside Bangor, Maine, with a metal clip from a pen in her hand. Then she sliced into the soft skin near her ribs. There was blood--and a sense of deep relief. "It makes the world very quiet for a few seconds," says Faith-Ann. "For a while I didn't want to stop, because it was my only coping mechanism. I hadn't learned any other way."

The pain of the superficial wound was a momentary escape from the anxiety she was fighting constantly, about grades, about her future, about relationships, about everything. Many days she felt ill before school. Sometimes she'd throw up, other times she'd stay home. "It was like asking me to climb Mount Everest in high heels," she says.

It would be three years before Faith-Ann, now 20 and a film student in Los Angeles, told her parents about the depth of her distress. She hid the marks on her torso and arms, and hid the sadness she couldn't explain and didn't feel was justified. On paper, she had a good life. She loved her parents and knew they'd be supportive if she asked for help. She just couldn't bear seeing the worry on their faces.

For Faith-Ann, cutting was a secret, compulsive manifestation of the depression and anxiety that she and millions of teenagers in the U.S. are struggling with. Self-harm, which some experts say is on the rise, is perhaps the most disturbing symptom of a broader psychological problem: a spectrum of angst that plagues 21st century teens.

Adolescents today have a reputation for being more fragile, less resilient and more overwhelmed than their parents were when they were growing up. Sometimes they're called spoiled or coddled or helicoptered. But a closer look paints a far more heartbreaking portrait of why young people are suffering. Anxiety and depression in high school kids have been on the rise since 2012 after several years of stability. It's a phenomenon that cuts across all demographics--suburban, urban and rural; those who are college bound and those who aren't. Family financial stress can exacerbate these issues, and studies show that girls are more at risk than boys.

In 2015, about 3 million teens ages 12 to 17 had had at least one major depressive episode in the past year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. More than 2 million report experiencing depression that impairs their daily function. About 30% of girls and 20% of boys--totaling 6.3 million teens--have had an anxiety disorder, according to data from the National Institute of Mental Health.

Experts suspect that these statistics are on the low end of what's really happening, since many people do not seek help for anxiety and depression. A 2015 report from the Child Mind Institute found that only about 20% of young people with a diagnosable anxiety disorder get treatment. It's also hard to quantify behaviors related to depression and anxiety, like nonsuicidal self-harm, because they are deliberately secretive.
For a limited time, TIME is giving all readers special access to subscriber-only stories. For complete access, we encourage you to become a subscriber. Click here.
Still, the number of distressed young people is on the rise, experts say, and they are trying to figure out how best to help. Teen minds have always craved stimulation, and their emotional reactions are by nature urgent and sometimes debilitating. The biggest variable, then, is the climate in which teens navigate this stage of development.

They are the post-9/11 generation, raised in an era of economic and national insecurity. They've never known a time when terrorism and school shootings weren't the norm. They grew up watching their parents weather a severe recession, and, perhaps most important, they hit puberty at a time when technology and social media were transforming society.

"If you wanted to create an environment to churn out really angsty people, we've done it," says Janis Whitlock, director of the Cornell Research Program on Self-Injury and Recovery. Sure, parental micromanaging can be a factor, as can school stress, but Whitlock doesn't think those things are the main drivers of this epidemic. "It's that they're in a cauldron of stimulus they can't get away from, or don't want to get away from, or don't know how to get away from," she says.

In my dozens of conversations with teens, parents, clinicians and school counselors across the country, there was a pervasive sense that being a teenager today is a draining full-time job that includes doing schoolwork, managing a social-media identity and fretting about career, climate change, sexism, racism--you name it. Every fight or slight is documented online for hours or days after the incident. It's exhausting.

"We're the first generation that cannot escape our problems at all," says Faith-Ann. "We're all like little volcanoes. We're getting this constant pressure, from our phones, from our relationships, from the way things are today."

Lise Sarfati for TIME

Steve Schneider, a counselor at Sheboygan South High School in southeastern Wisconsin, says the situation is like a scab that's constantly being picked. "At no point do you get to remove yourself from it and get perspective," he says.

It's hard for many adults to understand how much of teenagers' emotional life is lived within the small screens on their phones, but a CNN special report in 2015 conducted with researchers at the University of California, Davis, and the University of Texas at Dallas examined the social-media use of more than 200 13-year-olds. Their analysis found that "there is no firm line between their real and online worlds," according to the researchers.

Phoebe Gariepy, a 17-year-old in Arundel, Maine, describes following on Instagram a girl in Los Angeles whom she'd never met because she liked the photos she posted. Then the girl stopped posting. Phoebe later heard she'd been kidnapped and was found on the side of a road, dead. "I started bawling, and I didn't even know this girl," says Phoebe. "I felt really extremely connected to that situation even though it was in L.A."

That hyperconnectedness now extends everywhere, engulfing even rural teens in a national thicket of Internet drama. Daniel Champer, the director of school-based services for Intermountain in Helena, Mont., says the one word he'd use to describe the kids in his state is overexposed. Montana's kids may be in a big, sparsely populated state, but they are not isolated anymore. A suicide might happen on the other side of the state and the kids often know before the adults, says Champer. This makes it hard for counselors to help. And nearly 30% of the state's teens said they felt sad and hopeless almost every day for at least two weeks in a row, according to the 2015 Montana Youth Risk Behavior Survey. To address what they consider a cry for help from the state's teens, officials in Montana are working on expanding access to school-based and tele-based counseling.

Megan Moreno, head of social media and adolescent health research at Seattle Children's Hospital, notes a big difference between the mobile-social-tech revolution of the past 15 years and things like the introduction of the telephone or TV. In the olden days, your mom told you to get off the family phone or turn off the TV, and you did it. This time, kids are in the driver's seat.

Parents are also mimicking teen behavior. "Not in all cases, obviously, but in many cases the adults are learning to use their phones in the way that the teens do," says Moreno. "They're zoning out. They're ignoring people. They're answering calls during dinner rather than saying, 'O.K., we have this technology. Here are the rules about when we use it.'"

She cautions against demonizing technology entirely. "I often tell parents my simplest analogy is it's like a hammer. You know, you can build a house that's never existed before and you can smash someone's head in, and it's the same tool." Sometimes phones rob teens' developing brains of essential downtime. But other times they're a way to maintain healthy social connections and get support.

Nora Carden, 17, of Brooklyn, who started college in upstate New York this fall, says she's relieved when she goes on a trip that requires her to leave her phone for a while. "It's like the whole school is in your bag, waiting for an answer," she says.

School pressures also play a role, particularly with stress. Nora got counseling for her anxiety, which became crushing as the college-application process ramped up. She'd fear getting an answer wrong when a teacher called on her, and often felt she was not qualified to be in a particular class. "I don't have pressure from my parents. I'm the one putting pressure on myself," she says.

"The competitiveness, the lack of clarity about where things are going [economically] have all created a sense of real stress," says Victor Schwartz of the Jed Foundation, a nonprofit that works with colleges and universities on mental-health programs and services. "Ten years ago, the most prominent thing kids talked about was feeling depressed. And now anxiety has overtaken that in the last couple of years."

Tommy La Guardia, a high-achieving 18-year-old senior in Kent, Wash., is the first college-bound kid in his family. He recently became a finalist for prestigious scholarships, all while working 10 to 15 hours a week at a Microsoft internship and helping to care for his younger brothers.

His mom, Catherine Moimoi, says he doesn't talk about the pressure he's under. They don't have a lot of resources, yet he manages everything himself, including college tours and applications. "He's a good kid. He never complains," she says. "But there are many nights I go to sleep wondering how he does it."

Tommy admits that the past year was tough. "It's hard to describe the stress," he says. "I'm calm on the outside, but inside it's like a demon in your stomach trying to consume you." He deals with those emotions on his own. "I don't want to make it someone else's problem."

Alison Heyland, 18, a recent high school graduate, was part of a group in Maine called Project Aware, whose members seek to help their peers manage anxiety and depression by making films. "We're such a fragile and emotional generation," she says. "It's tempting for parents to tell kids, 'Just suck it up.'" But, says Alison, "I feel like it really is less realistic for you to go after your dream job today. You're more apt to go do a job that you don't really like because it pays better and you'll be in less debt."

Meanwhile, evidence suggests the anxiety wrought by school pressures and technology is affecting younger and younger kids. Ellen Chance, co-president of the Palm Beach School Counselor Association, says technology and online bullying are affecting kids as early as fifth grade.

The strain on school counselors has increased since No Child Left Behind standardized testing protocols were implemented in the past decade. Tests can run from January through May, and since counselors in Chance's county are often the ones who administer the exams, they have less time to deal with students' mental-health issues.

"I couldn't tell you how many students are being malicious to each other over Instagram or Snapchat," she says of the elementary school where she's the sole counselor for more than 500 kids. "I've had cases where girls don't want to come to school because they feel outcasted and targeted. I deal with it on a weekly basis."

Conventional wisdom says kids today are oversupervised, prompting some parenting critics to look back fondly to the days of latchkey kids. But now, even though teens may be in the same room with their parents, they might also, thanks to their phones, be immersed in a painful emotional tangle with dozens of their classmates. Or they're looking at other people's lives on Instagram and feeling self-loathing (or worse). Or they're caught up in a discussion about suicide with a bunch of people on the other side of the country they've never even met via an app that most adults have never heard of.

Phoebe Gariepy says she remembers being in the backseat of a car with her headphones on, sitting next to her mom while looking at disturbing photos on her phone on social-media feeds about cutting. "I was so distant, I was so separated," she says. She says it was hard to get out of that online community, as gory as it was, because her online life felt like her real life. "It's almost like a reality-TV show. That's the most triggering part of it, knowing that those real people were out there." It would be hard for most people to know that the girl sitting there scrolling through her phone was engaged in much more than superficial selfies.

Josh, who did not want his real name published, is a high school sophomore in Maine who says he remembers how his parents began checking on him after the Sandy Hook shooting that killed 20 children and six adults. Despite their vigilance, he says, they're largely unaware of the pain he's been in. "They're both heterosexual cis people, so they wouldn't know that I'm bisexual. They wouldn't know that I cut, that I use red wine, that I've attempted suicide," he says. "They think I'm a normal kid, but I'm not."

In the CNN study, researchers found that even when parents try their best to monitor their children's Instagram, Twitter and Facebook feeds, they are likely unable to recognize the subtle slights and social exclusions that cause kids pain.

Finding disturbing things in a child's digital identity, or that they're self-harming, can stun some parents. "Every single week we have a girl who comes to the ER after some social-media rumor or incident has upset her [and then she cut herself]," says Fadi Haddad, a psychiatrist who helped start the child and adolescent psychiatric emergency department at Bellevue hospital in New York City, the first of its kind at a public hospital. Teens who end up there are often sent by administrators at their school. When Haddad calls the parents, they can be unaware of just how distressed their child is. According to Haddad, this includes parents who feel they're very involved in their children's lives: they're at every sports game, they supervise the homework, they're part of the school community.

Sometimes when he calls, they're angry. One mother whose child Haddad treated told him that she found out her daughter had 17 Facebook accounts, which the mother shut down. "But what good does that do?" says Haddad. "There will be an 18th."

For some parents who discover, as Faith-Ann's parents Bret and Tammy Bishop did a few years ago, that their child has been severely depressed, anxiety-ridden or self-harming for years, it's a shock laden with guilt.

Bret says Faith-Ann had been making cuts on her legs and ribs for three years before she got the courage to tell her parents. "You wonder, What could I have done better?" he says. Looking back, he realizes that he was distracted too much of the time.

"Even for us as adults, you're never away from work now. Before, there wasn't anything to worry about till I got back on Monday. But now it's always on your phone. Sometimes when you're home, you're not home," Bret says.

When Bret and Tammy joined a group for parents of kids with depression, he discovered that there were many girls and some boys who were also depressed and hurting themselves, and that few parents had any idea of what was going on.

Tammy said she wishes she'd followed her gut and taken Faith-Ann for counseling earlier. "I knew something was wrong, and I couldn't figure it out," she says.

Self-harm is certainly not universal among kids with depression and anxiety, but it does appear to be the signature symptom of this generation's mental-health difficulties. All of the nearly two dozen teens I spoke with for this story knew someone who had engaged in self-harm or had done it themselves. It's hard to quantify the behavior, but its impact is easier to monitor: a Seattle Children's Hospital study that tracked hashtags people use on Instagram to talk about self-harm found a dramatic increase in their use in the past two years. Researchers got 1.7 million search results for "#selfharmmm" in 2014; by 2015 the number was more than 2.4 million.

While girls appear more likely to engage in this behavior, boys are not immune: as many as 30% to 40% of those who've ever self-injured are male.

The academic study of this behavior is nascent, but researchers are developing a deeper understanding of how physical pain may relieve the psychological pain of some people who practice it. That knowledge may help experts better understand why it can be hard for some people to stop self-harming once they start. Whitlock, the director of the self-injury research program at Cornell, explains that studies are pretty consistent in showing that people who injure themselves do it to cope with anxiety or depression.

It's hard to know why self-harm has surfaced at this time, and it's possible we're just more aware of it now because we live in a world where we're more aware of everything. Whitlock thinks there's a cultural element to it. Starting in the late 1990s, the body became a kind of billboard for self-expression--that's when tattoos and piercings went mainstream. "As that was starting to happen, the idea of etching your emotional pain into your body was not a big step from the body as a canvas as an idea," she says.

The idea that self-harm is tied to how we see the human body tracks with what many teens told me when I interviewed them. As Faith-Ann describes it, "A lot of value is put on our physical beauty now. All of our friends are Photoshopping their own photos--it's hard to escape that need to be perfect." Before the dawn of social media, the disorders that seemed to be the quintessential reflection of those same societal pressures were anorexia or bulimia--which are still serious concerns.

Whitlock says there are two common experiences that people have with self-harm. There are those who feel disconnected or numb. "They don't feel real, and there's something about pain and blood that brings them into their body," she says.

On the other end of the spectrum are people who feel an overwhelming amount of emotion, says Whitlock. "If you asked them to describe those emotions on a scale of 1 to 10, they would say 10, while you or I might rate the same experience as a 6 or 7. They need to discharge those feelings somehow, and injury becomes their way," she explains.

The research on what happens in the brain and body when someone cuts is still emerging. Scientists want to better understand how self-harm engages the endogenous opioid system--which is involved in the pain response in the brain--and what happens if and when it does.

Some of the treatments for self-harm are similar to those for addiction, particularly in the focus on identifying underlying psychological issues--what's causing the anxiety and depression in the first place--and then teaching healthy ways to cope. Similarly, those who want to stop need a strong level of internal motivation.

"You're not going to stop for somebody else," explains Phoebe, the teenager from Maine. Even thinking about how upset her mother was about the self-harm wasn't enough. "I tried making pacts with friends. But it doesn't work. You have to figure it out for yourself. You have to make the choice."

Eventually, Phoebe steered herself out of the dark, destructive corners of the Internet that reinforced her habit by romanticizing and validating her pain. She's now into holistic healing and looks at positive sites populated by people she calls "happy hippies."

Faith-Ann remembers the day her mother Tammy noticed the scars on her arms and realized what they were. By then she was a junior in high school. "I normally cut in places you couldn't see, but I had messed up and I had a cut on my wrists. I lifted my arm to move my hair, and she saw it. It was scary because the cuts were in a place that people associate with suicide." That was not what she was attempting, however.

"If she'd asked me before that if I was cutting, I would have said no. I wouldn't have wanted to put that pain on her," says Faith-Ann. But that night she said, "Yes, I am cutting, and I want to stop." Tammy cried for a bit, but they moved on. She didn't ask why, she didn't freak out, she just asked what she could do to help. "That was the exact right thing to do," says Faith-Ann.

The family got counseling after that. Her parents learned that they weren't alone. And Faith-Ann learned breathing techniques to calm herself physically and how to talk to herself positively. Recovery didn't happen all at once. There were relapses, sometimes over tiny things. But the Bishops were on the right road.

One of the most powerful things Faith-Ann did to escape the cycle of anxiety, depression and self-harm was to channel her feelings into something creative. As part of the Project Aware teen program in Maine, she wrote and directed a short film about anxiety and depression in teens called The Road Back. More than 30 kids worked on the project, and they became a support system for one another as she continued to heal.

"I had a place where I could be open and talk about my life and the issues I was having, and then I could project them in an artistic way," she says.

Bellevue's Fadi Haddad says that for parents who find out their children are depressed or hurting themselves, the best response is first to validate their feelings. Don't get angry or talk about taking away their computers. "Say, 'I'm sorry you're in pain. I'm here for you,'" he says.

This straightforward acknowledgment of their struggles takes away any judgment, which is critical since mental-health issues are still heavily stigmatized. No adolescent wants to be seen as flawed or vulnerable, and for parents, the idea that their child has debilitating depression or anxiety or is self-harming can feel like a failure on their part.

Alison Heyland's dad Neil says that initially, it was hard to find people to confide in about his daughter's depression. "I see everyone putting up posts about their family, they look so happy and everyone's smiling, everything is so perfect and rosy. I kind of feel less than," he says.

For both generations, admitting that they need help can be daunting. Even once they get past that barrier, the cost and logistics of therapy can be overwhelming.

Faith-Ann still struggles at times with depression and anxiety. "It's a condition that's not going to totally disappear from my life," she says over the phone from Los Angeles, where she's thriving at film school. "It's just learning how to deal in a healthy way--not self-harming, not lashing out at people."

Of course Bret and Tammy Bishop still worry about her. They now live in Hampstead, N.C., and at first Bret didn't like the idea of Faith-Ann's going to school in California. If she was having trouble coping, he and Tammy were a long plane ride away. How can you forget that your child, someone you've dedicated years to keeping safe from the perils of the world, has deliberately hurt herself? "It's with you forever," says Tammy.

These days, she and Bret are proud of their daughter's independence and the new life she's created. But like a lot of parents who've feared for their child's health, they don't take the ordinary for granted anymore.

For more on help for teen mental-health issues, visit time.com/teenmentalhealth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teen Depression and Anxiety: Why the Kids Are Not Alright

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first time Faith-Ann Bishop cut herself, she was in eighth grade. It was 2 in the morning, and as her parents slept, she sat on the edge of the tub at her home outside Bangor, Maine, with a metal clip from a pen in her hand.

# data[].attributes.headline
IMPORTANT TEEN MENTAL HEALTH STATISTICS FOR PARENTS

# data[].attributes.subject
IMPORTANT TEEN MENTAL HEALTH STATISTICS FOR PARENTS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Polaris Teen Center: Premier Adolescent Treatment Center in Los Angeles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Important Teen Mental Health Statistics for Parents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Suspect your teen is suffering from a mental health condition? Learn current teen mental health statistics. Discover what you can do to help. Read the guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most American teenagers - across demographic groups - see depression and anxiety as major problems among their peers, a new survey by the Pew Research Center found.

The survey found that 70 percent of teenagers saw mental health as a big issue. Fewer teenagers cited bullying, drug addiction or gangs as major problems; those from low-income households were more likely to do so.

The consistency of the responses about mental health issues across gender, race and income lines was striking, said Juliana Horowitz, an associate director of research at the center.

The survey also asked respondents if they considered alcohol consumption or teen pregnancy to be major problems among their peers. Half of the teenagers from households earning less than $30,000 said alcohol was a major problem; that number decreased to 43 percent among teenagers in households earning more than $75,000.

Teenagers diverged most drastically across income lines on the issue of teen pregnancy. Fifty-five percent of teenagers in lower-income households said it was a major problem among their peers. Just 22 percent of teenagers in wealthier households agreed.

The survey of 920 teenagers ages 13 to 17 in the United States was conducted online and by phone in the fall. In their report, the researchers broke down results by income level and gender but not race or ethnicity, citing the small sample size.

Some psychologists have tied a growth in mental health issues among teenagers to increased social media use, academic pressure and frightening events like terror attacks and school shootings.

Teenagers who grew up in the post-9/11 era, and amid many school shootings, may have anxiety tied to an environment filled with dire warnings about safety, said Philip Kendall, director of the Child and Adolescent Anxiety Disorders Clinic at Temple University in Philadelphia.

His center often helps children distinguish between the possible and the probable, to help put anxiety about frightening but rare events in proper context.

Another major stressor is constant surveillance by peers on social media, and the "fear of missing out" it can generate, he added. Again, he said, guidance about how to understand social media - for example, a person taking 50 photos to get one perfect image - can help to dispel anxiety.

Increased rates of mental health issues could also be tied to better screening practices, noted Lynn Bufka, an associate executive director at the American Psychological Association.

But it is still cause for concern, she said. Teenagers are dealing with rapid changes to their bodies, hormones and lives in an era of nonstop information overload, and they need help developing coping strategies.

"It becomes really important for the adults around teens to be stable influences in their lives, to give them space for them to talk," she said.

A study released in 2017 found that the number of children and adolescents admitted to children's hospitals for thoughts of self-harm or suicide had more than doubled from 2008 to 2015, echoing trends in federal data.

Dr. Bufka said her top advice for adults worried about teenagers in their lives was simple: Listen, without "pouring on advice" or judging too much, and give them the opportunity to talk to a counselor or psychologist if needed.

"Let them know that you've got their back," she said.
[If you are having thoughts of suicide, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 (TALK) or go to SpeakingOfSuicide.com/resources for a list of additional resources.]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teenagers Say Depression and Anxiety Are Major Issues Among Their Peers (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most American teenagers - across demographic groups - see depression and anxiety as major problems among their peers, a new survey by the Pew Research Center found. The survey found that 70 percent of teenagers saw mental health as a big issue.

# data[].attributes.headline
Social Media and Teens: How Does Social Media Affect Teenagers’ Mental Health

# data[].attributes.subject
Social Media and Teens: How Does Social Media Affect Teenagers’ Mental Health

# data[].attributes.headline
What's Driving the Rise in Teen Depression?

# data[].attributes.subject
What's Driving the Rise in Teen Depression?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Symptoms of adolescent depression frequently differ from symptoms in adults. For example, youth may experience more irritability and moodiness, sleep at odd times of the day and isolate themselves from adults, particularly family members, but still long to be with peers. Adults, however, may experience insomnia, intense bouts of sadness and isolate themselves from both friends and family.

In addition to varying with age, symptoms also differ by gender. According to a study published in the Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, girls report feelings of sadness, guilt, worthlessness, punishment, tiredness and low energy, whereas boys report more irritability, depression and suicidal thoughts. With all of this symptomatic variation and conflicting information, it's easy to miss the warning signs and chalk up adolescent depression to "typical" teen behavior.

Consequently, many depressed kids don't get the help they need. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that only 20 percent of youth suffering from a mental health disorder, like depression, receive treatment for their condition. This means 80 percent, or about 12 million youth, are undertreated or not treated at all, and that's a major concern, especially as adolescent depression is on the rise.

A study published this month in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology finds that over the past decade the number of youth with mental health disorders has more than doubled. This particular study examined data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, which has collected data on drug and alcohol use and mental health issues in America since 1971. Survey responses from more than 200,000 youth ages 12 to 17 between 2005 to 2017 and approximately 400,000 adults between 2008 to 2017 were reviewed, and what researchers discovered was alarming. For youth, major depression increased 52 percent from 2005 to 2017 - from 8.7 percent to13.2 percent, and it rose 63 percent in young adults ages 18 to 25 from 2009 (8.1 percent) to 2017 (13.2 percent).

The numbers highlight the mental health issues facing young people across the nation, and lead to the burning question: What has contributed to the increase in adolescent depression? Over the past decade, researchers have desperately sought to determine this. Unfortunately, there isn't a conclusive answer, but there are about five common themes that have emerged from the data:
1. A modern-day diagnosis.
As an article in Johns Hopkins Health Review explains, adolescent depression is a relatively new diagnosis. Until the 1980s, mental health professionals were reluctant to diagnose youth with a mood disorder in part because the adolescent brain is still developing and they thought it would not be appropriate to diagnose someone so young with depression. Also, professionals believed that teen moodiness was perfectly normal during what is often referred to as the turbulent years.
2. Hyper-connected and overstimulated.
There's no doubt about it, today's teens are hyper-connected. Electronic devices are so intertwined with youth's lives that the real world and virtual world coincide. With over 95 percent of teens having access to a smartphone and 45 percent online "almost constantly," according to a Pew Research Center study, more and more teens are turning to the internet for social support and social comparison.

The recent research published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology explained that the spike in depression, distress and suicidal tendencies may be connected to the social media trends among young people. For example, it's not uncommon for youth to measure their self-worth based on the likes and comments they get from others, which is of course an inaccurate measure of one's personal value. It's no surprise that social media has been linked with negative psychological outcomes for youth.

Each generation is influenced and shaped by the history of the time. Today's youth have grown up in the grim shadows of post-9-11. Unfortunately, this generation knows all too well the fear of terrorism. Whether it be a lone shooter or mass terrorist attack, our nation's youth have come to know and live with violence in their lives. From concerts to malls and restaurants to schools, today's youth understand the stark reality that they live in a time where their sense of security can instantly be stripped away by heinous and cowardly attacks of others.
4. Not enough sleep.
Sleep disturbance, described as insomnia or hypersomnia, is one of the primary symptoms of major depressive disorder. Teens are notoriously sleep-deprived, only getting about seven hours of the National Sleep Foundation's recommended 8.5 to 9.25 hours. Time and time again, studies have indicated that youth aren't getting enough sleep, and that can lead to a depressed mood, moodiness and irritability.

During the teen years, youth are undergoing dramatic maturational and physiological changes. Thus, the role of sleep in mental and physical health is extremely important. Good sleep has been associated with better physical, cognitive and psychological well-being. Consequently, poor sleep is related to health problems, and cognitive and psychological impairment.
5. Lack of community.
We live in stressful times. Our modern lifestyles highlight our hectic day-to-day routines, and that spills over into the lives of our children. With the go-go mentality, our community has dwindled, and as a result, our face-to-face connections have decreased.

Our lives are becoming more structured and organized. Before we became a technologically reliant and fast-paced society, our kids engaged in more unstructured play, ate less processed foods and exercised on a daily basis, but those times are fading. Today's kids report that they feel rushed to do things and pressured to be successful.

Youth depression is a concern plaguing our nation, so much so that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended that primary caregivers screen adolescents ages 12 to 18 for major depressive disorder. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen. Not only should medical personnel help with identifying teen depression, but the responsibility should fall on all of us. We need to create healthy and trusting relationships with our youth, and in the process revive our community.

Suffering from a mental illness can be a frightening experience, especially if you have to suffer in silence. Fortunately, there are a variety of effective depression treatments available today. If you believe that your child or a loved one is struggling with depression, please seek professional help. Depression is treatable, and the earlier it's treated the more effective the treatment is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's Driving the Rise in Teen Depression?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Examining the contributing factors that have led to the increase.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
Boats and boating--Equipment and supplies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effects of Overfishing on Wild Seafood Populations from the Seafood Watch Program at the Monterey Bay Aquarium

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about overfishing, one of the biggest threats to ocean ecosystems, and its impacts on fish populations and ocean health.

# data[].attributes.headline
Overfishing: The most serious threat to our oceans

# data[].attributes.subject
Overfishing: The most serious threat to our oceans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Of all the threats facing the oceans today, overfishing takes the greatest toll on sea life - and people.

What is overfishing?

Overfishing is catching too many fish at once, so the breeding population becomes too depleted to recover. Overfishing often goes hand in hand with wasteful types of commercial fishing that haul in massive amounts of unwanted fish or other animals, which are then discarded.

As a result of prolonged and widespread overfishing, nearly a third of the world's assessed fisheries are now in deep trouble - and that's likely an underestimate, since many fisheries remain unstudied.

3 billion people worldwide depend on seafood as a protein source.

What are the effects of overfishing?

Overfishing endangers ocean ecosystems and the billions of people who rely on seafood as a key source of protein. Without sustainable management, our fisheries face collapse - and we face a food crisis.

What are the causes of overfishing?

Poor fishing management is the primary cause. Around the world, many fisheries are governed by rules that make the problem worse, or have no rules at all.

What's the solution to overfishing?

With smarter management systems, known as fishing rights, we can reverse the incentives that lead to overfishing. Under fishing rights, fishermen's interests are tied to the long-term health of a fishery. Their income improves along with the fish population.

Does it work?

Yes. In Belize, Denmark, Namibia, the United States and elsewhere, fishing rights have helped transform struggling fisheries. In the Gulf of Mexico, red snapper populations are three times what they were in 2007 when we helped reform that fishery. Over the next five years, we are working to ensure that sustainable fishing is firmly established in the U.S. and other countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Overfishing: The most serious threat to our oceans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Of all the threats facing the oceans today, overfishing takes the greatest toll on sea life and people. Find out why it's the biggest threat to our oceans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In many of the world's fisheries, poor policies give fishermen a stronger incentive to poach rather than protect. With billions of people relying on seafood as a key protein, we must change the trajectory of crashing fish populations - or risk a global food crisis.

Fixing a broken system

Traditional fishery management has motivated fishermen to catch as much as possible as quickly as possible, without regard to the long-term health of the fishery. But when fisheries institute rights-based management, fishermen become highly motivated to become stewards of their oceans.

How it works: Fishermen receive a secure share of the catch, and they agree to adhere to strict limits that allow fish populations to rebuild. This long-term ownership stake - in the form of a percentage of the fishery - is an asset that a fisherman can sell or grant to his children. And when the fishery grows, his stake increases, along with his profits.

TRADITIONAL MANAGEMENT

FISHING RIGHTS

When to fish

In designated seasons, some as short as a few days

When weather and market conditions are at their best

How much to catch

As much as possible in the limited seasons

A set amount, spaced throughout the year

Incentive to follow rules

Fear of penalties, not consistently enforced

Ownership of shares that grow in value as the fishery regains health

The incentives are working

A kind of rights-based fishing called catch shares has already transformed fisheries in the United States. Overfishing has dropped 60 percent in federal waters since 2000; and better management is providing more stable fishing jobs and increased revenue.

In Belize, Denmark, Namibia, the United States and elsewhere, sustainable management is creating healthier oceans that support more fish, feed more people and improve livelihoods.

Fisherman and fishery managers are some of our biggest allies in this change.

"We're catching bigger fish and getting more bang for our buck," says Buddy Guindon, a Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper fisherman.

"[Sustainable fishing] will help fish rebound without marginalizing those who have fished for generations," says Belize Fisheries administrator Beverly Wade.

Next: Focus on regions with big impact

By changing the policies and practices of 12 nations, we can get 70 percent of the world's catch under managed rights, tipping the system toward sustainability. This is our goal for 2020. We need your support to get us there.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In many of the world's fisheries, poor policies give fishermen a stronger incentive to poach rather than protect. With billions of people relying on seafood as a key protein, we must change the trajectory of crashing fish populations - or risk a global food crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hunting And Fishing Rights

Hunting and fishing rights are some of the special rights that Native Americans enjoy as a result of the treaties signed between their tribes and the federal government. Historically, hunting and fishing were critically important to Native American tribes. Fish and wildlife were a primary source of food and trade goods, and tribes based their own seasonal movements on fish migrations. In addition, fish and wildlife played a central role in the spiritual and cultural framework of Native American life. As the Court noted, access to fish and wildlife was "not much less necessary to the existence of the Indians than the atmosphere they breathed" ( United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, S. Ct. 662, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1089 [1905]).

When Native American tribes signed treaties consenting to give up their lands, the treaties often explicitly guaranteed hunting and fishing rights. When the treaties created reservations, they usually gave tribe members the right to hunt and fish on reservation lands. In many cases, treaties guaranteed Native Americans the continued freedom to hunt and fish in their traditional hunting and fishing locations, even if those areas were outside the reservations. Even when hunting and fishing rights were not specifically mentioned in treaties, the reserved-rights doctrine holds that tribes retain any rights, including the right to hunt and fish, that are not explicitly abrogated by treaty or statute.

Controversy and protest have surrounded Native American hunting and fishing rights, as state governments and non-Indian hunters and fishers have fought to make Native Americans subject to state hunting and fishing regulations. The rights of tribal members to hunt and fish on their own reservations have rarely been questioned, because states generally lack the power to regulate activities on Indian reservations. Tribes themselves have the right to regulate hunting and fishing on their reservations, whether or not they choose to do so. Protests have arisen, however, over the rights of Native Americans to hunt and fish off of their reservations. Such rights can be acquired in one of two ways. In some instances, Congress has reduced the size of a tribe's reservation, or terminated it completely, without removing the tribe's hunting and fishing rights on that land. In other cases, treaties have specifically guaranteed tribes the right to hunt and fish in locations off the reservations. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, treaty provisions commonly guaranteed the right of tribes to fish "at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations," both on and off their reservations. Tribes in the Great Lakes area also reserved their off-reservation fishing rights in the treaties they signed.

These off-reservation rights have led to intense opposition and protests from non-Indian hunters and fishermen and state wildlife agencies. Non-Indian hunters and fishermen resent the fact that Indians are not subject to the same state regulations and limits imposed on them. State agencies have protested the fact that legitimate conservation goals are compromised when Indians can hunt and fish without having to follow state wildlife regulations. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has consistently upheld the off-reservation hunting and fishing rights of Native Americans. In the 1905 case United States v. Winans, it ruled that treaty language guaranteeing a tribe the right to "tak[e] fish at all usual and accustomed places" indeed guaranteed access to those usual and accustomed places, even if they were on privately owned land.

The most intense opposition to Native American off-reservation hunting and fishing rights has occurred in the Pacific Northwest, where tribal members have fought to defend their right to fish in their traditional locations, unhindered by state regulations. In a series of cases involving the state of Washington and local Native American tribes, the federal courts ruled on aspects of the extent and limits of tribal fishing rights. In a 1942 case, Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681, 62 S. Ct. 862, 86 L. Ed. 1115, the Court ruled that tribal members could not be forced to purchase fishing licenses because the treaties that their ancestors had signed already reserved the right to fish in the "usual and accustomed places."

That case was followed by a series of cases involving the Puyallup Indian tribe that became known as Puyallup I, Puyallup II, and Puyallup III. In the first of those cases, the Court ruled that the state of Washington has the right, in the interest of conservation, to regulate tribal fishing activities, as long as "the regulation meets appropriate standards and does not discriminate against the Indians" ( Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game, 391 U.S. 392, 88 S. Ct. 1725, 20 L. Ed. 2d 689 [1968]). In the second case, the Court ruled that the state's prohibition on net fishing for steelhead trout was discriminatory because its effect was to reserve the entire harvestable run of steelhead to non-Indian sports fishermen ( Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, 414 U.S. 44, 94 S. Ct. 330, 38 L. Ed. 2d 254 [1973]). In its ruling, the Court declared that the steelhead "must in some manner be fairly apportioned between Indian net fishing and non-Indian sports fishing." Finally, in Puyallup III, the Court ruled that the fish caught by tribal members on their reservation could be counted against the Indian share of the fish ( Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game, 429 U.S. 976, 97 S. Ct. 483, 50 L. Ed. 2d 583 [1976]).

This notion of a fair APPORTIONMENT of fish was clarified by United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), in which the court determined that treaty language guaranteeing tribes the right to take fish "in common with all citizens of the Territory" guaranteed the Indians not just the right to fish but also the right to a certain percentage of the harvestable run, up to 50 percent. This decision set off a firestorm of controversy throughout the Pacific Northwest. Hundreds of legal disputes erupted over the allocation of individual runs of salmon and steelhead, and state and non-Indian fishing interests attacked the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld the decision in a collateral case, Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n 443 U.S. 658, 99 S. Ct. 3055, 61 L. Ed. 2d 823 (1979). In that case, the Court upheld the district court's ruling and went on to clarify the details of the way the fish should be apportioned. Writing for the majority, Justice JOHN PAUL STEVENS stated that the treaties guaranteed the tribes "so much as, but no more than, is necessary to provide the Indians with a livelihood-that is to say a moderate living." A "fair apportionment, " he said, would be 50 percent of the fish, emphasizing that 50 percent was the maximum, but not the minimum, amount of fish to which the Indians were entitled.

The Court resolved a decade-old legal dispute in 1999 involving Indian fishing and hunting rights with the decision in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172, 119 S. Ct. 1187, 143 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1999). It ruled in favor of the Chippewa Indians' right to fish and hunt in northern Minnesota without state regulation. By a 5-4 vote, the Court upheld an appeals court decision finding that the tribe's rights under an 1837 treaty were still valid. The ruling marked a final victory for the tribe in its long fight to assert its treaty rights and to defend its cultural traditions.

Brought by the tribe in 1990, the lawsuit proved highly controversial in Minnesota, which regarded it as a threat to the $54 million in tourism revenue generated by the Mille Lacs Lake resort industry. But two lower federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the state's arguments that the 162-year old treaty had been invalidated by presidential order, later treaties, and even by Minnesota's gaining of statehood. The U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion, written by Justice SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR, detailed the history of the treaty and subsequent actions that the state, nine counties, and landowners claimed had rendered the treaty invalid. She found nothing in this historical information that had bearing on the continued validity of the treaty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Native American Rights - Hunting And Fishing Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hunting And Fishing Rights Hunting and fishing rights are some of the special rights that Native Americans enjoy as a result of the treaties signed between their tribes and the federal government. Historically, hunting and fishing were critically important to Native American tribes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fishing Rights Ruling With Bounty of Anger

# data[].attributes.subject
Fishing Rights Ruling With Bounty of Anger

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit... The New York Times Archives

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times's print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

Chief Seattle, who is buried here within view of the city that was given his name, died more than 120 years ago. But a treaty he signed with a simple "X" in 1855 continues to haunt ancestors of the Americans who claimed this land from the natives.

Citing a clause in that treaty giving 15 tribes in the region fishing rights, a Federal court ruling last month gave Indians the right to take up to half of the shellfish from Puget Sound, one of the nation's top producers of oysters, crabs and clams.

With the ruling, the Indians plan to begin harvesting shellfish from private beaches, state parks, even areas where commercial oyster growers have set up elaborate farms. Land owners, outraged over the decision, which they call a grave threat to property rights, say they may press Congress to abrogate parts of the 19th-century treaty.

The ruling by Judge Edward Rafeedie of Federal District Court in Los Angeles has generated new animosity between Indians and non-Indians who have been fighting over fishing rights for most of this century. Two weeks ago, gunshots were fired over the heads of Indians who were digging clams on a beach on the Olympic Peninsula.

No one was hurt, but some property owners say the gunshots could be a harbinger of things to come if the Indians try to take shellfish from private land.

"Things are starting to heat up," said Bill Dewey, manager of an oyster farm and a spokesman for 65 shellfish growers in Puget Sound. The court ruling, he said, "has the potential to devastate this industry, and people are very upset."

The dispute hangs on a few words in a treaty dated Jan. 22, 1855, signed by Chief Seattle and dozens of other leaders of various Puget Sound tribes, with Isaac Stevens, the territorial Governor. Recent court rulings have interpreted a clause in that treaty to mean that the Indians get half of the valuable fish in the Puget Sound area. This clause has proven to be a continual struggle in the multimillion-dollar fishing industry.

In some years, Puget Sound, with more than 2,000 miles of coastline on inlets, fjords and islands, is the leading shellfish producer in the nation. Its oyster and clams, particularly the huge geoducks that can fetch $8 a pound in Asian markets, are sold worldwide. The shellfish growers say they will not be able to operate their businesses if Indians come onto their tidelands.

The Indians, who now take less than 4 percent of Puget Sound's shellfish harvest, mostly from public land, say the property owners are overreacting. They say they can harvest half the tideland marine bounty without disturbing the saltwater farms that have been developed over the last century.

Their treaty, signed by President Franklin Pierce, approved by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, is not something that should be subject to political whim, the Indians say.

"Treaty rights are property rights, but you don't hear the property rights freaks in the new Congress or the Washington State Legislature coming to our defense," said Tony Forsman, executive director of the Suquamish Tribe, one of the 15 tribes that have signed treaties allowing them to take fish from Puget Sound. "You hear all this talk about the 'Contract with America,' and the Contract with Washington State. What about the contract with the Indians?"

The Suquamish, whose small reservation is just across Puget Sound from Seattle, have about 800 members. Chief Seattle was a leader of the Suquamish and the Duwamish, another Puget Sound tribe.

The treaty of Point Elliott, which Chief Seattle signed, is similar in wording to other treaties Governor Stevens made in a whirlwind tour around the Pacific Northwest.

In each of these treaties, the Indians ceded most of Washington Territory to the United States, in return for reservations, a cash payment and the right of taking fish at usual and accustomed places "in common with all citizens of the Territory."

Twenty years ago, in a decision that set off a war of words, vandalism and lawsuits, Judge George Boldt of Federal District Court in Seattle ruled that the phrase "in common with" in the treaty meant that the tribes could take up to half of all the salmon in Washington. That ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Last month, Judge Rafeedie extended Judge Boldt's ruling to shellfish. But he went another step as well. The treaty says that tribes cannot take shellfish "from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens." But Judge Rafeedie said the tribes could harvest clams or naturally occurring shellfish that may lie beneath the cultivated beds. This interpretation surprised both sides.

"A lot of oyster farmers cultivate natural production to help their farms," Mr. Dewey said. "What this court ruling means is that the Indians could come in and get 50 percent of our labors, without paying anything for it. That makes it impossible to run a business."

In addition, waterfront property owners are concerned about the ruling, which they fear will let Indians will trespass on their yards and driveways to get to the tidelands.

"It's our view that the Indians gave up the right to any access to this property once they ceded it to the United States," said James M. Johnson, a lawyer for United Property Owners of Washington.

The Indians of Puget Sound have been in court for decades, trying to uphold the fishing provisions of their treaties. In more than 30 cases in the Federal appeals courts, the Indians have lost only once.

Now, with the shellfish ruling, the Indians say they see a chance to build a new tribal economy in a fast-growing industry, worth at least $30 million annually in Puget Sound.

The shellfish growers have proposed that the Indians get their 50 percent on designated public beaches. Before the court ruling, the tribes had proposed numerous settlements, including an offer somewhat similar to the one now promoted by the shellfish industry.

It was rejected, Mr. Forsman of the Suquamish Tribe said, because "these political leaders have not had the guts to stand up and deal with us on a government-to-government basis." Mr. Forsman was one of the main negotiators for the Indians. After the tribes won in court, they said they had no incentive to renegotiate.

Property owners say there is an incentive. If the Indians start harvesting shellfish from private land, as they indicated they will in a plan put forth two weeks ago, they will face harassment and threats to their lives, property owners say.

"If they go ahead and hit the beaches, there's probably going to be more people shooting over their heads and other problems," Mr. Dewey said.

The Indians cannot start harvesting half the shellfish until Judge Rafeedie enters his final order. He has asked that all sides submit a plan to him, by the end of January, outlining how they would manage the shellfish.

The shellfish industry and property owners have appealed his decision. If they get to the Supreme Court, they feel they have a backdoor chance with the new, more conservative court, to overturn the much more significant Boldt decision on salmon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fishing Rights Ruling With Bounty of Anger

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times's print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them. Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

# data[].attributes.headline
The changing face of Congress in 6 charts from PEW Research

# data[].attributes.subject
The changing face of Congress in 6 charts from PEW Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 118th Congress achieved a variety of demographic milestones when its members took office in January. Generation Z is now represented in the national legislature, while Vermont sent a female lawmaker to Capitol Hill for the first time. Still, Congress remains out of step with the broader U.S. population by several demographic measures.

Here are eight charts that show how the profile of Congress has changed over time, using historical data from CQ Roll Call, the Congressional Research Service and other sources.

The 118th Congress is the most racially and ethnically diverse in history. Overall, 133 lawmakers identify as Black, Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian, Alaska Native or multiracial. Together, these lawmakers make up a quarter of Congress, including 28% of the House of Representatives and 12% of the Senate. By comparison, when the 79th Congress took office in 1945, non-White lawmakers represented just 1% of the House and Senate combined.

Despite this growing racial and ethnic diversity, Congress remains less diverse than the nation as a whole. Non-Hispanic White Americans account for 75% of voting members in the new Congress, considerably more than their 59% share of the U.S. population.

The number of women in Congress is at an all-time high. A little more than a century after Republican Jeannette Rankin of Montana became the first woman elected to Congress, there are 153 women in the national legislature, accounting for 28% of all members. (This includes six nonvoting House members who represent the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, four of whom are women.)

A record 128 women are currently serving in the House, making up 29% of the chamber's membership. That figure includes 22 newly elected congresswomen, including Becca Balint, a Vermont Democrat who became the first woman and first openly LGBTQ person elected to Congress from the state. With Balint's election, all 50 states have now had female representation in U.S. Congress at some point.

In the Senate, 25 women are currently serving, tying the record number of seats they held in the 116th Congress. The Senate gained just one new female member:
Republican Katie Britt, who became the first elected woman senator from Alabama. Just as in the previous Congress, four states - Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire and Washington - have all-female Senate delegations.

The House has seen slow but steady growth in the number of women members since the 1920s, when women gained the right to vote. Growth in the Senate has been slower. The Senate did not have more than three women serving at any point until the 102nd Congress, which began in 1991.

The share of women in Congress remains far below their share in the country as a whole (28% vs. 51%).

Thirteen voting members of Congress identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual - the highest number in history. This includes two senators and 11 members of the House of Representatives. There have not been any openly transgender members to date.

The number of lawmakers in this group has more than tripled over the last decade. In the 112th Congress of 2011-12, just four members - all representatives - identified as gay or lesbian, and none as bisexual.

The 13 lesbian, gay and bisexual members of Congress accounted for about 2% of the 534 voting lawmakers as of Jan. 3, 2023. By comparison, LGB Americans make up 6.5% of the U.S. adult population overall, according to a 2021 Gallup survey.

The share of Millennials and Gen Xers in Congress has grown slightly in recent years. In the current Congress, 12% of House members, or 52 lawmakers, are Millennials (a generation ranging in age from 27 to 42 in 2023). This share is up from 1% at the start of the 115th Congress in 2017. And 166 members of the House (38%) are part of Generation X - ages 43 to 58 in 2023 - up from 27% in the 115th Congress.

The Senate now has three Millennial members, up from one - the first ever to be elected - in the last Congress. There are 23 Gen X senators, up from 16 in the 115th Congress.

While younger generations have increased their representation in Congress, older generations still account for the largest share of lawmakers across both chambers. Baby Boomers (who are between the ages of 59 and 77 this year) make up 45% of the House's voting membership, in addition to 66 of the 100 senators.

The ranks of the Silent Generation (those ages 78 to 95 in 2023) have decreased in Congress in recent years. Across both legislative chambers, 5% of lawmakers, or 29 members, are part of the Silent Generation, down from 14%, or 61 members, in the 115th Congress at the start of 2017.

The share of immigrants in Congress has ticked up but remains well below historical highs. There are 18 foreign-born lawmakers in the 118th Congress, including 17 in the House and one in the Senate: Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat who was born in Japan.

These lawmakers account for 3% of voting members, slightly higher than the share in other recent Congresses, but below the shares in much earlier Congresses. In the 50th Congress of 1887-89, for example, 8% of members were born abroad. The current share of foreign-born lawmakers in Congress is also far below the foreign-born share of the entire U.S. population, which was 13.6% as of 2021.

While the number of foreign-born lawmakers in the current Congress is small, more members have at least one parent who was born in another country. Together, immigrants and children of immigrants account for at least 15% of the new Congress, a slightly higher share than in the last Congress (14%).

Far fewer members of Congress now have personal military experience than in the past. In the current Congress, 97 members have served in the military at some point in their lives - among the lowest numbers since at least World War II, according to Military Times. There are almost three times as many Republican veterans in the 118th Congress as Democratic veterans (72 vs. 25). Roughly similar shares of current representatives (18.4%) and senators (17%) have served in the military.

Since the second half of the 20th century, there has been a dramatic decrease in members of Congress with military experience. Between 1965 and 1975, at least 70% of lawmakers in each legislative chamber had military experience. The share of members with military experience peaked at 75% in 1967 for the House and at 81% in 1975 for the Senate.

While relatively few members of Congress today have military experience, an even smaller share of Americans do. In 2021, about 6% of U.S. adults were veterans, according to the U.S. Census Bureau - down from 18% in 1980, not long after the end of the military draft era.

Nearly all lawmakers in Congress have a college degree. In the 118th Congress, 94% of House members and all but one senator have a bachelor's degree or more education.

In the House, nearly two-thirds of representatives (64%) have a graduate degree. Five representatives (1%) have an associate degree but no bachelor's. Another 22 members (5%) do not have a degree. This group includes one member who has a professional certification: Democrat Cori Bush of Missouri has a registered nursing diploma.

Among current senators, 78 have at least one graduate degree. Republican Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma is the lone senator without a bachelor's degree. He holds an associate degree from the Oklahoma State University of Technology. Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, earned a doctorate in medicine from Duke University Medical School but does not hold a bachelor's.

The educational attainment of members of Congress far outpaces that of the U.S. adult population. In 2021, around four-in-ten American adults ages 25 and older (38%) had a bachelor's degree or more education, according to the Census Bureau.

Christians remain the largest religious group in Congress, but their ranks have declined slightly over time. A large majority of current lawmakers in Congress - 469 members - identify as Christian, but that is the lowest total since 2009, when Pew Research Center began analyzing this trend. There were at least 470 Christian lawmakers in each of the last eight Congresses, and the number exceeded 500 in 1970.

Still, Christians' share in Congress is greater than their proportion of the broader American public. Nearly nine-in-ten congressional members (88%) are Christian as of Jan. 3, 2023, compared with 63% of U.S. adults overall.

By contrast, religiously unaffiliated adults' share on Capitol Hill is far below their share of the overall U.S. population: While 29% of Americans say they are atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular," just one lawmaker - independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona - identifies as religiously unaffiliated. (Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman of California describes himself as humanist, and 20 lawmakers' religious affiliations are categorized as unknown. Most of those 20 declined to state a religious affiliation when they were asked by CQ Roll Call, which served as the primary data source for the Center's analysis.)
Note: This is an update to a post originally published on Feb. 2, 2017.
Read more about the 118th Congress' demographics:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The changing face of Congress in 8 charts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 118th Congress achieved a variety of demographic milestones when its members took office, though it still remains out of step with the U.S. population.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the term 'racist' be redefined? From BBC

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the term 'racist' be redefined? From BBC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Chelsea Bailey BBC News, Washington

One thing Americans find hard to talk about

February was Black History Month in the US, a time typically set aside to recognise African Americans and their contributions to the country.

This year's commemoration ended with insults and accusations of racism on the floor of Congress, at a televised hearing broadcast into millions of homes. But that exchange, between a Democrat and Republican, was hardly an isolated incident.

The month began with calls for Virginia's governor to resign after a photo emerged of him in blackface. And it ended with President Donald Trump - who himself has been accused of racism - saying Academy Award winner Spike Lee was being racist after the film director urged Americans to "do the right thing" and choose love over hate by helping to thwart Mr Trump's re-election hopes.

The flood of racially-charged headlines underlined a feeling shared by many - that 400 years after the first slaves were brought to the US, Americans still struggle to have meaningful conversations about race.

"We can't even have a productive conversation if people aren't open to looking in the mirror," said Ibram Kendi, director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University.

"Denial is essentially the heartbeat of racism in this country and every time you are not open to what you could be doing in the moment, you are living and breathing racism itself."

African Americans in New Orleans on the state of race relations

He says the first step to dismantling racism in the US is recognising that we can all shift between being racist and anti-racist.

"When someone is charged with doing something that's racist, instead of getting upset and lashing out, they should consider the evidence."

Conversations about race typically devolve into arguments because Americans have come to view the word "racist" a permanent label and not a description of an action, says Mr Kendi.

He now advocates for redefining the word "racist" as a reflection of both our beliefs and behaviours and not merely as an insult.

"A racist supports, by their action or inaction, policies that reproduce racial inequality. An anti-racist supports, with their actions, policies that reduce or eliminate racial inequality," says Mr Kendi.

"What you're doing and what you're saying is an expression of who you are in that moment."

Much of this discussion was sparked by the argument on the floor of the House of Representatives, which began when after Rashida Tlaib, a Democratic freshman, accused the Republican veteran congressman Mark Meadows of racism and using a black woman as a "prop".

Mr Meadows had asked Lynne Patton, a long-time employee of the Trump Organization, to attend the Michael Cohen hearing to refute accusations that President Trump was racist.

Speaking for Ms Patton, Mr Meadows said "as the daughter of a man born in Birmingham, Alabama, there is no way she would work for a man who is racist".

Allow Twitter content?

This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read

and

before accepting. To view this content choose 'accept and continue'.

When Ms Tlaib said that simply having a friend or employee who's a minority does not prohibit someone from being racist, the hearing quickly dissolved into a very heated row.

Social psychologist Daniel Effron, who studies morality and race, said there's a reason people often resort to the "black friend" defence when charged with racism.

Mr Effron said his research shows that whenever a person is accused of racism or their moral identity is challenged, they instinctively search for any example to bolster their "non-racist credentials", which can be a low bar.

"When people are motivated to find evidence that they're not prejudiced, they're more likely to think having a black friend is really strong evidence," he said.

Getty Images

Spike Lee never mentioned President Trump by name in his speech but it was interpreted as a message to vote him out

"We make a mountain of morality out of a molehill of virtue."

But even people with good intentions can face criticism when it comes to discussing race in America, as the director of the Oscar-winning movie Green Book discovered.

Set against the backdrop of the segregated South in the 1960s, the film follows the unlikely friendship between a black classical and jazz musician and his white chauffeur.

Critics accused the film of whitewashing history and furthering the "white saviour" trope in Hollywood.

More on race in the US

Racism in the US: Is there a single step that can bring equality?

Author and anti-racism activist Tim Wise said he thinks we need to reframe the way we teach race in America, shifting the emphasis away from an individual's actions and looking at the system as a whole.

"When we think about the way Americans teach racism historically, it is a story about individuals who did or did not own slaves, individuals who did or did not own segregated businesses. It's a lot harder to see systems of inequality," he said, adding that this can absolve people from reflecting on their own actions.

Mr Wise explores his own struggles with reconciling white privilege and racism in his autobiography White Like Me and has made a career out of navigating difficult conversations about racism.

He said he thinks Americans have been conditioned to believe certain racial stereotypes and unlearning those prejudices begins with recognising they exist in the first place. Until then, he said, we will continue to have circular arguments about race without making progress toward dismantling racism.

"It would be ridiculous to say, 'I don't have a racist bone in my body'... you grew up in America," he says.

"It's about saying, 'Look, I'm going to be humble enough to admit my weaknesses. Not because I want you to beat me up and not because I want to beat myself up, but because I know that I'm capable of better.'"

Copyright 2023 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.

Beta Terms By using the Beta Site, you agree that such use is at your own risk and you know that the Beta Site may include known or unknown bugs or errors, that we have no obligation to make this Beta Site available with or without charge for any period of time, nor to make it available at all, and that nothing in these Beta Terms or your use of the Beta Site creates any employment relationship between you and us. The Beta Site is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis and we make no warranty to you of any kind, express or implied.

In case of conflict between these Beta Terms and the BBC Terms of Use these Beta Terms shall prevail.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A series of very public arguments over race blighted Black History Month and reminded us of an undisputed fact.

# data[].attributes.headline
An Interview with the Founders of Black Lives Matter, TED Talk

# data[].attributes.subject
An Interview with the Founders of Black Lives Matter, TED Talk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An interview with the founders of Black Lives Matter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Born out of a social media post, the Black Lives Matter movement has sparked discussion about race and inequality across the world. In this spirited conversation with Mia Birdsong, the movement’s three founders share what they’ve learned about leadership and what provides them with hope and inspiration in the face of painful realities. Their advice on how to participate in ensuring freedom for everybody: join something, start something and “sharpen each other, so that we all can rise.”