Mental Health Breaks

In the past 10 days Congress has passed two pieces of legislation that will significantly improve the millions of Americans with mental health disorders.

On 9/23/08, the House passed the Mental Health Parity Act (HR 6983, introduced by Rep. Kennedy, D-RI), which will require insurance companies to provide coverage for mental health illnesses, that is equitable to the coverage they provide for other physical ailments. Rep. Pelosi noted that the through this bill, "By requiring that illness in the brain be treated just like illness anywhere else in the body for insurance purposes, we are helping to end discrimination against those who seek treatment for mental illness and saving lives." The bill would also provide coverage for substance abuse and addiction.

On 9/29/08, the House passed the Mentally Ill Offender Act (S 2304, introduced by Sen. Domenici, R-NM), which would reauthorize a grant program created in 2004 to improve inmates' mental health treatment, including new trainings for law enforcement officers on how to deal with inmates with mental illnesses. According the to the Department of Justice, 45% of federal inmates have mental health problems. The Senate passed the bill on 9/26/08, and the bill has been cleared for the president.

While this is a much needed policy to better protect the health of all inmates, the mental health issue is much more complex nationwide. Many individuals end up in prison because their mental illnesses have gone undiagnosed or are not properly treated (in part because insurance companies have discriminated against mental illnesses on the whole, as compared to other illnesses). Congress & the president need to continue to think creatively about potential solutions to this pressing problem so as to ensure that individuals with mental health problems, especially those who may be at risk for committing crimes, have access to proper medical care in order to prevent individuals from harming others and/or ending up in our jails and prisons.

Domestic Injustice

Amidst the financial chaos yesterday, the Justice Department released its findings on the suspicious and sudden firing of 9 US attorneys in 2006, none of which had poor performance reviews and most of which were presiding over corruption investigations. The bottom line? "Our investigation found significant evidence that political partisan considerations were an important factor in the removal of several . . . U.S. attorneys." Most Americans are aware of and increasingly frustrated with the Rovian politics of this administration, but the extent to which these politics damage democracy at its core is appalling. 

What goes unsaid in the report is equally as telling. The investigators were refused access to evidence by the White House at every turn.  This lack of access to evidence was explicitly due to "the refusal by certain key witnesses to be interviewed by us, as well as by the White House's decision not to provide internal White House documents to us." 

In the most egregious example, US attorney in New Mexico, David Iglesias, was blindly fired after complaints by Sen. Domenici (R-NM) and other high ranking GOP party activists that he was not prosecuting democrats thoroughly enough in election law cases. The report found that then-attorney general "Gonzales and his deputies at Justice never looked into Iglesias's handling of those cases and, in fact, never even asked him about them. They just fired him." What is worse, is that the investigators at DOJ were not allowed to do their job. "The investigators wanted to ask White House political czar Karl Rove, White House counsel Harriet Miers, Goodling, Domenici and Domenici's chief of staff about any role they played in Iglesias's dismissal. All refused to be interviewed."

The Bush administration has prioritized political gain and ideology over fairness and good public policy, not only at the DOJ but throughout the US government over the past 8 years.  It's time to end these disastrous means of governance and the upcoming presidential election gives the American people the chance to do just that. 

Debate Questions from the Rest of the World

Yesterday the New York Times published a list of questions posed to Obama and McCain by international leaders, policy associates, reporters and heads of nonprofits. The list is comprised of pointed questions that Obama and McCain (and Biden and Palin for that matter) should be able to answer thoughtfully in the debates. The questions won't be asked, but are thought provoking and highlight some of the toughest international challenges that the new president will likely face come January. They also subtly recognize many of America's failures in the foreign policy arena over the past 5, 10 and 15 years. Many Americans are concerned about our actions and image abroad (not just military), and the answers each nominee would give to these questions are of incredible importance. 

How would you work with America’s allies in the Muslim world to turn around the widely held misperception there, as evidenced in opinion polls, that the global war against terrorism is actually a war against Islam?

— ASIF ALI ZARDARI, the president of Pakistan

Many developing countries — mine included — have made sacrifices to carry out tough economic reforms and have sought “trade and not aid.” To succeed, we need to compete on a level playing field with more developed economies. Is the United States ready to shoulder some of the burden by advocating the elimination or tempering of protectionism and subsidies? The United Nations by itself, with its faults and many achievements, does not lead. Nation-states do. American commitment and leadership is a must for effective multilateral cooperation. Will you demonstrate a renewed commitment to multilateralism and the rule of international law? Will you negotiate actively to agree on a post-Kyoto treaty on global warming and seek to join the United Nations Human Rights Council? Lastly, what would you do to regain the trust of your allies who would like to see the United States engaging in respectful dialogue and leading the way in the fight not merely against terrorism — which must be done — but also against world hunger, poverty, inequality and disease?

— MICHELLE BACHELET, the president of Chile

Do you view China simply as an emerging great power, or as an emerging great power with a conflicting ideology? And how will this perception shape your China policy?

— HU SHULI, the editor of the Chinese business magazine Caijing

It is important to know not only what the next president will do, but also why he will do it. I am somewhat puzzled by the absence of “why” questions in the presidential campaign. Why, for example, do you, Mr. McCain, advocate the expulsion of Russia from the Group of 8? Do you believe that this will change Moscow’s behavior? Or do you believe that undemocratic states should not be members of the group? Also, why do both of you support Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? Do you believe this policy would expand the West’s sphere of influence? Are you convinced that it would be good for the alliance, or do you think NATO has lost its centrality in American foreign policy? Is it possible that each of you advocates the same policy for very different reasons?

— IVAN KRASTEV, the editor of the Bulgarian edition of Foreign Policy magazine

Ledbetter & Gender Pay Discrimination

Despite the financial chaos, Senator Leahy managed to keep his committee schedule on track this week and held a hearing on pay discrimination based on gender, with Lilly Ledbetter testifying. Though we live in the 21st century, women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work. Adding to this disheartening fact is a new study out by Cornell law professors which concludes that the appellate courts are much more favorable to employers than other courts. This raises tangental concerns about the politicization of judge selection, another issue caught in Senate gridlock this year. 

Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tires for nearly 20 years, before finding out that she was being paid 15-40% less than her male counterparts. She had more training and plenty of experience, but because she was a female, was significantly underpaid. After filing with the EEOC she took her case to court. A jury of her peers found the case in her favor, after which a court of appeals overturned the ruling. In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tires the Supreme Court held that Goodyear did not have to compensate Ledbetter for their discrimination against her, because of a statute of limitations requiring employees to file their suits within 6 months of the first act of discrimination. This was logically impossible for Ms. Ledbetter, but the Supreme Court ruled against her anyways. 

Congress, in a moment of clarity, decided this was unaceptable and began working on legislation to remedy the situation many women in America today face. The House passed the "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" in July 2007. The Senate proved to be the end of the bill, after a Republican filibuster the measure failed. Both Clinton and Obama returned from the campaign trail to vote for the measure, while McCain was the only senator not present for the vote. He aruged that women need "more education and training" (note: Ms. Ledbetter had more hours of training than her male counterparts) and raised a concern of "superflous lawsuits", a claim made with no evidence to support it. 

Chairman Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Specter (R-PA) are working to reintroduce legislation with the start of the new session, and their determiniation to ensure that women are compensated at the same rate as men is admirable as they pursue pratical and fair public policies.  

The Difference is Hope

The member nations of the UN are meeting this week in NY with an agenda that includes Iran, Georgia v. Russia, and an American financial crisis with international implications. But what about the UN's priorities? Those "bottom billion" that the UN pledged to take on with the passage of the Millennium Development Goals, aimed at halving world poverty by 2015, are not at the forefront of this week's meeting.  

Ban Ki-moon, the UN's secretary general, is doing his best this week to convince world leaders to circle back to these goals. The program is just over half-way through, and the World Bank recently reported that the number of those living in poverty worldwide has risen from just under 1 billion to 1.4 billion. 

This increase is largely due to an original overestimation of the per capita income in China and India. The number of poor in those two countries now far exceed the numbers in Africa. The difference being that the per capita income in China and India is rising at a rate far higher than those in Africa. Paul Collier points out that this produces the biggest difference between these two worlds: hope. 

"The difference between a poor Asian household and an equally poor African one is hope, not necessarily for the present generation of adults, but for their children. Hope makes a difference in people's ability to tolerate poverty; parents are willing to sacrifice as long as their children have a future. Our top priority should be to provide credible hope where it has been lacking." 

He goes on to argue for a readjustment of the Millennium Goals to achieve this. The world has changed drastically since the goals were adopted, and they lack strategy (other than simply throwing aid at needy countries). For example, when the goals were adopted in 2000, there was no mention of employment, increasing employment or unemployment strategies. It was not until 2005 that the language was added. 

Such failures in strategy must be corrected if the Millennium Goals are to be effective in any way. So far, their successes have been limited- there is the same level of poverty today as there was in 1981.  "Let's not forget, before this recent economic crisis there already was a crisis. Poverty is not being reduced." (Juan Somavia, director-general of the International Labor Organization)

Rise of the Rwandan Women

Rwanda held its parliamentary elections this week which resulted in huge victories for women, who now hold 56.25 of the parliamentary seats. They have broken the 'world record' as it is, of women representatives in a national legislative body. 

There are a number of factors behind this trend, which has been increasing steadily for a number of years. In 2003 the UN called for women to represent 30% of the representatives in their national legislatures or parliaments, and Rwanda responded by protecting this measure in their constitution. But those changes only required the seating of only 24 female representatives total, after this election, 44 will be seated. 

Additionally the Rwandan government has embarked on a massive campaign to increase literacy and transform their economy into one based on knowledge and information. The result has been an increase in female literacy rates, up to 50% from 10% 15 years ago. 

1,500 Deaths a Day that Go Unnoticed

According to an article in The Hill this morning, there are 1,500 people dying per day in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). But looking at the western media, the casual observer would never know it. 

The number is hard to fully comprehend. To put it in perspective, the US has lost 4,148 men and women in the war in Iraq, and 584 in the war in Afghanistan (Washington Post Count) That is to say, in three days more people die in the DRC than have died in the Iraq war since it started in 2002. And in one day, three times as many people die in the DRC than have died in Afghanistan since that military operation began. The Congolese are facing a severe crisis, the death toll over the past decade has surpassed 5.4 million. This is the equivalent of having the Indian Ocean tsunami hit every 6 months.

The deaths currently occuring are not all the direct result of violence, most are from simple health problems such as dehydration and malnutrition, which are easily treatable when the proper resources are available. According to the World Health Organization, 990 (per 100,000) women die during childbirth per year, in the US this number is 17. One in five Congolese children dies before their fifth birthday.

The problems of the DRC are incredibly complex and as such, many nations are reluctant to render aid. Butcher sums it up by saying "The world seems reluctant to grasp the heartache of the Congo because the turmoil is so complicated. The violence in the Congo does not lend itself to tidy categorization; it is not “genocide,” although there are occasionally genocidal components; it is not a “crime against humanity,” although some of the systemic sexual violence against women falls into that category; it is not part of the “War on Terror,” although close attention should be paid to the Congo’s poorly policed uranium mines in Katanga, mines that produced the uranium refined for the bomb used at Hiroshima, and the proximity in nearby East Africa of al Qaeda sympathizers." 

But complexity should not be an excuse for ignoring the situation. The government in power was democratically elected in 2006 and has asked the ICC to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the violence. They clearly need help upholding the rule of law, and have gone so far as to cede their own sovereignty and ask for international assistance. The international community should not turn them away, but rather embrace them with open arms. Other forms of aid are also needed desperately as the government attempts to rebuild the country's infrastructure, public resources and improve the well being of its citizens. 

"A hundred years ago this November international pressure helped the Congolese when outsiders, including U.S. Congress members, forced Leopold II, king of the Belgians, to cease his murderous private rule over the Congo and transfer it to the Belgian government as a colony. It was not the end of the Congo’s problems but it was a definite improvement.

The centenary of a pioneering human rights achievement should inspire us today not to give up on a country and those 1,500 souls."

2,484 Children Serving Time without Hope

Last week Bobby Scott (R-VA) held a subcommittee hearing on HR 4300, the Juvenile Justice and Accountability Act. Unfortunately the legislation is politically nonviable as politicians would rather not look 'soft on crime' in an election year. This is a real tragedy because the legislation proposes much needed changes in the sentencing laws relevant to the children in our communities.

Currently in the United States there are 2,484 children under the age of 18 who are serving life sentences with no chance for parole. 9 of them are 13 years old, all 9 of those are African-American. Those 2,484 youth are the only ones in the world serving such harsh sentences, no other nation in the world currently has any kids serving life sentences without the possibility of parole.

That is to say that we as a society have deemed kids as young as 13 as nonredeemable. As a society we have looked at their actions and determined them to be forever unfit to reenter society. We see no possibility of personal growth, reform or even simple maturation of these individuals.

The use of this sentence with youth is problematic on a number of fronts. First, it is often grossly disproportionate to the crimes committed. The majority (59%) of youth convicted to JLWOP are first time offenders. Those who were convicted with co-defendents were found in nearly 70% of the cases, to have been engaging in the illegal activity with an adult.

Second, the court uses a double standard when it comes to judging the capacities of those under the age of 18. Teenagers are not deemed old enough to vote, drink, smoke or drive without some restrictions, but they are being tried and convicted as human beings with adult decision making capabilities. The extensive use of technology has allowed scientists and psychologists to better understand brain development in adolescents and young adults. They understand now, better than ever, that the frontal lobes of the brain, the portion responsible for executive functions (such as decision making, restraining impulses, and the capacity for understanding how one's actions will affect others), develop at the end of adolescence and in early adulthood. In addition, the science behind the tracking of brain functions make it incredibly difficult to credibly predict the future actions of an adolescent. In essence, there is an assumed maturation rate of the brain that is ignored by mandates to sentence juveniles to life without parole.

The Supreme Court has held (in Roper v. Simmons) that the 8th and 14th amendments forbid sentencing a individual to death whose crime was committed when they were under the age of 18. The majority opinion states that "When a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the State can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the State cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity." The argument follows that it would then be unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to life without parole, a death sentence of another sort, without ever giving the individual a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate a 'mature understanding of his own humanity' and a chance for parole. If the individual demonstrates no remorse, no sign of reform or maturation, parole shall not be granted- just as with any other prisoner.

To deny youth of a meaningful opportunity for parole is to sentence them to death inside prison walls, with no hope for redemption or change. It is a shame that our politicians are so concerned with their own re-election campaigns that they are unwilling to stand for a public policy that sends the message to our youth that they can change for the better, that their worst mistake is not their only defining characteristic, and that if they change their life for the better we would value their contributions to our communities.