|
Ice Agents Are out of Control. And They Are Only Getting Worse |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29990"><span class="small">Trevor Timm, Guardian UK</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 01 June 2017 08:43 |
|
Timm writes: "The agency, emboldened by Trump's xenophobic rhetoric, is out of control - and Congress is doing little to stop them."
Sean Spicer said the president wanted to 'take the shackles off' Ice agents so they could conduct more arrests.' (photo: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters)
Ice Agents Are out of Control. And They Are Only Getting Worse
By Trevor Timm, Guardian UK
01 June 17
The agency is so harmful to civil rights, there’s a good argument it should be disbanded altogether. Unfortunately they are only becoming more emboldened
 ith arrests of non-violent undocumented immigrants exploding across the country, it’s almost as if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents are having an internal contest to see who can participate in the most cruel and inhumane arrest possible. The agency, emboldened by Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric, is out of control – and Congress is doing little to stop them.
Last week, Ice agents ate breakfast at a Michigan restaurant, complimented the chef on their meal and then proceeded to arrest three members of the restaurants kitchen staff, according to the owner.
Depraved stories like this are now almost too prevalent to comprehensively count: Ice has arrested undocumented immigrants showing up for scheduled green card appointments at a US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office. They’ve arrested a father after dropping his daughter off at school. An Ice detainee was even removed forcefully against her will from a hospital where she was receiving treatment for a brain tumor.
In a particularly dangerous policy, Ice been arresting people inside US courthouses around the country. “Attorneys and prosecutors in California, Arizona, Texas and Colorado have all reported teams of Ice agents – some in uniform, some not – sweeping into courtrooms or lurking outside court complexes, waiting to arrest immigrants who are in the country illegally,” reported the LA Times in March.
It apparently doesn’t matter that the agency has faced stiff resistance from judges and prosecutors over this policy, who have both claimed that it will mean people won’t show up to court. And fears are not just conjecture: a Denver city attorney was recently forced to drop four domestic violence cases because the witnesses were too afraid to come into court for fear of being deported.
Many groups, including the ACLU, have also accused Ice of targeting non-violent activists who protest the Trump administration’s increasingly draconian immigration policy with arrest.
While the anecdotes are horrifying, the numbers tell a similar story. Arrests of undocumented immigrants have increased substantially over Trump’s first few months in office. According to numbers released by the government, over Trump’s first 100 days, Ice arrested over 41,000 individuals – a 37.6% increase over a year earlier, which they openly bragged about on the Ice website.
Worse, the arrests of non-violent immigrants with no criminal record whatsoever has exploded, more than doubling from 4,242 people to 10,845 over the same period from 2016 to 2017. And as the Daily Beast reported on Tuesday: “Men and women held by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement are on pace to die at double the rate of those who died in Ice custody last year.”
It’s not just the fear of arrest that is gripping immigrant communities. In addition to the Trump administration stripping away due process protections for arrested immigrants via executive order, the US justice department has even attempted to cut off legal representation for some immigrants – a horrific move by anyone’s standards.
Last month, the justice department tried to prevent an immigrant not-for-profit group in Seattle from giving immigrants legal assistance like filling out paperwork, unless they offer them full representation in court. Thankfully, a judge temporarily blocked the move, but it’s just one more example of the Trump administration almost unbelievably cruel policy towards the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants.
Early in his presidency, Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, said the president wanted to “take the shackles off” Ice agents so they could conduct more arrests, eerily echoing the CIA’s comments post-9/11 that they would “take the gloves off” in response to the terrorist attack.
The CIA followed that statement with a years-long, worldwide torture program that violated domestic and international law for which they still have not been held accountable, and it’s increasingly clear Ice is following a similar path.
While some Democrats have introduced bills to curtail some of Ice’s most egregious transgressions, Republicans, who control both houses of Congress, have shown little if any interest in reining in Ice. The agency is so harmful to civil rights, there’s a good argument it should be disbanded altogether, but unfortunately it seems they are only becoming more emboldened with each passing week.
 |
|
Democrats' Waffling on Abortion Rights Isn't Just Wrong, It's a Huge Political Mistake |
|
|
Thursday, 01 June 2017 08:32 |
|
Geier writes: "At a time when women's reproductive rights are more vulnerable than they've been in decades, party leaders like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have been pushing the weaselly message that being pro-choice is not a 'litmus test' for Democrats and that the party is a 'big tent.'"
Demonstrators in front of the Thompson Center in Chicago voice their support for Planned Parenthood and reproductive rights on February 10. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty)
Democrats' Waffling on Abortion Rights Isn't Just Wrong, It's a Huge Political Mistake
By Kathleen Geier, In These Times
01 June 17
The party needs an uncompromising moral vision that will energize its base: pro-choice women.
henever the Democrats lose a major election, unhappy consequences are sure to follow. Among the most infuriating of these is the party’s unseemly haste to put women’s rights on the chopping block. It happened in 2004, following John Kerry’s presidential loss, when we were treated to Howard Dean blathering that “I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats” and a flood of op-eds with titles like “How pro-choice groups are hurting the Democrats.” Twelve years later, here we go again. We’re seeing the same avalanche of dreary op-eds by the fetus fancier contingent, including at least three in the New York Times.
Even more depressing is the stampede of prominent Democrats and progressives advertising their eagerness to compromise on choice. At a time when women’s reproductive rights are more vulnerable than they’ve been in decades, party leaders like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have been pushing the weaselly message that being pro-choice is not a “litmus test” for Democrats and that the party is a “big tent.” Tom Perez and Bernie Sanders not only made similar comments, but also supported the anti-choice Omaha mayoral candidate Heath Mello (who lost). Perez, like the others, reaffirmed his support of choice, but his recent announcement that he would meet with Democrats for Life has done little to allay pro-choicers’ concerns.
Sanders’ and the Democrats’ shakiness on women’s reproductive freedom is a betrayal of progressive values, but it’s not just that. If Democrats wish to grow the party, going wobbly on its support of reproductive justice is counterproductive and remarkably short-sighted. Such a stance is wrong as a matter of principle and wrong as a matter of political pragmatism.
Many of those advocating that the Democrats abandon their commitment to choice urge Democrats to frame abortion as a moral issue. In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, Catholic theologian Thomas Groome argues that Democratic politicians should “publicly acknowledge that abortion is an issue of profound moral and religious concern.”
Like Groome, I agree that abortion is profound moral issue, but unlike him, I believe that progressives need to start embracing abortion as a positive moral good, rather than stigmatizing it as a necessary evil. A lot of reproductive rights messaging has been euphemistic, equivocating and terrible—e.g., the Clintonite formulation that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” Then there is that old standby, “choice,” which conjures up a neoliberal vision of women as consumers in a marketplace, rather than as political subjects making demands of society and the state. In recent years, the reproductive rights movement has eased up on the “choice” language, but it still hasn’t found a compelling alternative. (For the sake of convenience, I still use “choice” and its variants when writing about abortion).
As Groome suggests, Democrats need to find a way of talking about women’s reproductive rights in terms of morality and values. But the traditionalist Catholic doctrines he promotes are hardly the last word on morality. Supporters of reproductive justice also have a powerful moral vision, one rooted in progressive values like ending economic and gender oppression, expanding liberty and creating a society that serves human needs.
If there’s anyone who has shown the importance of values-based politics, that person is Bernie Sanders. Sanders came shockingly close to being elected the Democratic party’s presidential nominee because he campaigned on a powerfully articulated left economic vision, not incrementalist mush. His conviction-based politics have served him well; he is now the de facto leader of the Left and the most popular politician in America. I voted for Sanders in the presidential primary and continue to admire him for putting big progressive ideas (single payer, free college, etc.) back into political circulation and for the activism he has inspired. But his statements and actions—endorsing anti-abortion candidates such as Heath Mello and Marcy Kaptur even though there are many pro-choice progressives who are far more deserving, describing Mello as “progressive,” referring to abortion as “a social issue”—are disturbing reminders that he does not view reproductive justice as central to the progressive agenda. Dismissing abortion as only a social issue is objectionable, not only because it’s marginalizing but also because it’s simply not true. Abortion is, of course, also an economic issue. This is an idea we’re hearing a lot about these days, but since many progressives still have not fully integrated it into their worldview, it bears repeating.
The economic case
Abortion is an economic issue in two senses: First of all, it is about what class of women gets an abortion, and thus is most profoundly affected when abortion access is denied. Poor women have a rate of unintended pregnancy five times the rate of higher-income women (those with incomes at least 200 percent of the poverty level), and fully 75 percent of women who have abortions are poor or low-income. The reasons for the class disparity in abortion rates are a bit murky, but we do know that low-income women are less likely to have access to contraception and more likely to experience rape. In any case, the demographics of abortion make one thing clear: the war on abortion rights is a class war on poor women, full stop.
When legislators pass laws that add unnecessary costs and delays to the abortion procedure, it is poor women who pay the price. Yet they are the group least able to afford an abortion in the first place. Anyone who thinks abortion is not economic issue should try paying for one, because they don’t come cheap. The median price of a first-trimester abortion is about $500, and a second-trimester procedure can cost over $1,500. That is a lot of money, especially for the nearly 60 percent of American households which say they would be unable to afford a $500 emergency expense. And those figures don’t even factor in travel expenses and the cost of taking unpaid time off work.
In addition to the stark class disparities of abortion, there is also the fact that having a child is among the most consequential economic decisions a woman will ever make. Because we live in a society that provides few resources to families, the burden of unpaid care work falls heavily on the shoulders of mothers. Decent child care is scarce and expensive, vanishingly few women have paid family leave (it’s available to only 12 percent of workers), and in contrast to many European countries, the U.S. does not provide families with a child allowance. Being a mother also takes a toll on women’s wages. Women who have children earn significantly less than women who don’t, even when controlling for education, experience, and other factors.
In surveys, women rank economic concerns as among their top reasons for getting an abortion. Over three-quarters of women having abortions cite their inability to afford a child and their concerns that having a child would interfere with work or school. Research has confirmed that abortion access has a powerful impact on women’s economic status. The landmark “turnaway study” compared women who had abortions with similar women who were “turned away” from the abortion care they requested. Two years later, the women who were denied an abortion had three times greater odds of ending up below the poverty line. But the women who had abortions were more likely to follow through on education and career plans.
It is clear that reproductive justice is one of the cornerstones of economic justice. The lack of reproductive rights perpetuates women’s, and especially poor women’s, economic oppression and is a serious structural obstacle to women’s advancement in our society. Anti-choice policies are a driver of economic inequality: both the economic inequality of women relative to men and of poor and working class families relative to more affluent households.
The moral case
Gender and economic justice arguments are central to the progressive moral case for abortion. The moral case for the antis rests on ideas about where life begins. Since that is a question that a secular framework can never settle, ultimately, the anti-abortion case depends on God.
Contrary to popular belief, however, religious arguments about abortion are not the exclusive property of the anti-choice side. In his fascinating new memoir Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice, abortion doctor Willie Parker makes a forceful case for reproductive justice as both a progressive value and a Christian moral imperative. In the context of our endless national abortion debate, where the loudest voices are from pundits and politicians who have no experience whatsoever with abortion, and where nearly every religious point of view we hear comes down firmly on the side of the antis, Parker’s book is a refreshing departure from the usual stale perspectives. Parker, whom In These Times profiled in 2015, is an African-American ob-gyn who every day risks his life by performing abortions in the Deep South, where other doctors refuse because of violent threats. He is also a devout Christian who approaches his calling with a powerful sense of religious mission. “I believe that as an abortion provider, I am doing God’s work,” he writes. For Parker, providing abortions for the women who need them is an act of radical Christian love, because “alleviating needless suffering is a Christian’s most sacred responsibility.”
One of the book’s virtues is the human face Parker puts on the patients he serves, many of them women of color and most of them working class or poor. There’s the nationally ranked runner in training to qualify for the Olympics; the mother of three who just got divorced; the woman who just lost her job (and her health insurance); the 12-year-old impregnated by her foster father. Parker, who was born in rural Alabama to a family so poor their house lacked electricity, sees his work as a blow against the interlocking oppressions that shape these women’s lives:
I understand how being poor and coming from a racially stigmatized group can threaten your sense of self-determination and agency. The woman who come to me for abortions are choosing a path different from what others would script for them.
Parker’s sensitivity to the racial and economic dimensions of reproductive freedom ally him with reproductive justice, the visionary movement created by women of color that ties women’s reproductive rights to other vital social justice goals. Like the reproductive rights movement, reproductive justice activists strongly support keeping abortion legal and accessible and have fought against policies that infringe upon that right, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental notification laws, and bans on using public funds for abortion. But the reproductive justice vision expands beyond a narrow focus on the legal regime regulating abortion. It’s not just about the right to abortion and birth control, but it’s also about the right to have a child, and to parent a child in a safe, healthy environment. The mission of the reproductive justice movement is, in the words of Loretta Ross, one of the movement’s founders, to “fight for the necessary enabling conditions to realize these rights.” Those conditions include, but are hardly limited to, everything from the social provision of child care, health care, and paid family leave to an end to welfare caps, police brutality, and environmental racism.
Reproductive justice activists understand that those goals require not just laws protecting choice, but far-ranging structural changes and some serious economic redistribution. The movement’s comprehensive focus on women’s lives and needs provide a more morally compelling framework for abortion rights than the traditional reproductive rights perspective, that turns abortion into an abstraction that’s about privacy or choice. And because its strategy is oriented toward organizing and coalition work with allied social justice groups, reproductive justice is a movement that is a natural fit for the kind of grassroots revolution Bernie Sanders is calling for. Reproductive justice activists are working for exactly the kind of changes that he has advocated. That’s why it’s been so disheartening that he and some other progressives have been treating reproductive freedom as a second-order concern.
The pragmatic case
It is understandable why, in the short-term, the Democratic Party chooses to funnel resources to anti-abortion candidates. At this low point in the party’s fortunes, it desperately needs to win some elections. And hey, if I lived in some of those districts, I would probably vote for some of those candidates too, because the alternatives are even worse. But the problem is that Democratic party establishment lacks the vision and imagination to think is beyond the short-term. Marinated in the Beltway conventional wisdom of 30 years ago, they seem unaware that our country has become so bitterly divided on partisan lines that most anti-choice voters would never dream of voting for a Democrat. This causes them to chronically underestimate support for pro-choice politics. But seven in ten Americans now support Roe v. Wade, and even in red America, support for choice is far stronger than many people realize.
Earlier this year in one of the most heavily Republican congressional districts in Kansas, a pro-choice Democrat with virtually no support from the DNC or DCCC came within 7 points of beating his GOP opponent—even though just a few months ago, Donald Trump carried the district by 27 points. John Ossoff, the pro-choice Democrat running for Newt Gingrich’s old seat in Georgia, won 48 percent of the vote, beating his nearest Republican opponent, vocal anti-choicer Karen Handel, by nearly 30 points and narrowly missing an outright victory. (The winner will be determined in a runoff election in June.) And voters in states as scarlet red as South Dakota and Mississippi have soundly rejected referendums that would have restricted abortion (in Mississippi, the pro-choice vote was 58 percent). These are encouraging outcomes. Why, then, are party leaders engaging in high-profile efforts on behalf of anti-abortion candidates like Mello while ignoring, until relatively late in the game, a pro-choice Democrat like Montana Congressional candidate Rob Quist? (Quist ultimately lost, but significantly outperformed benchmark expectations for Democrats in the district). In today’s deeply polarized political environment, turning out the base, which pro-choice groups are effective in doing, is a more promising strategy than misguided appeals to a (largely nonexistent) mushy middle. If the Democrats were smart, they would realize that mobilizing pro-choice politics could be a powerful strategy for rebuilding a party that in many areas of the country is flat on its back.
A pro-choice message cannot be the only such strategy, because an inclusive economic vision must remain central. Running for the Senate in Colorado, Democratic candidate Mark Udall focused heavily on reproductive rights but ignored practically everything else; he lost. Nor should a reproductive freedom message be too narrowly focused. Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff has been running for Congress on pro-choice themes, but his ads have stressed an austerity message. Austerity policies are economically disastrous and completely at odds with progressive values and reproductive justice.
In 2017, women’s reproductive rights are more fragile than at any time since 1973, the year of Roe v. Wade. Under the watch of Democratic president, Barack Obama, abortion rights continued to erode, as they did under the Democratic president before him, Bill Clinton. Provisions in the Affordable Care Act that Obama himself supported have forced more women to pay out of pocket for the procedure. Just in the last few years, women have been subjected to an unprecedented barrage of humiliating, infantilizing state laws that whittled away their rights. Abortion providers are closing in record numbers, the number of women arrested for actions related to their pregnancy has skyrocketed, and Trump and the Republicans are threatening to defund Planned Parenthood. And yet, the Democratic party, which has a long history of elevating anti-choice politicians (e.g., former senate majority leader Harry Reid, Vice President Joe “abortion is always wrong” Biden, Vice Presidential nominee Tim Kaine), is blithely continuing the practice. Many in the party are rallying behind so-called “progressive hero” Tom Perriello, a Democrat with an anti-choice record who’s running for governor of Virginia.
What is so enraging is that while the Democrats have been busy selling out the cause of women’s rights, women have been busy saving the party’s sorry ass. It was the Women’s March, after all, that more than any other single post-election event launched the anti-Trump resistance movement. That movement is overwhelmingly female, a finding that’s been confirmed by surveys as well as reporting in the field. While the male Democratic establishment was still in deer-in-the-headlights mode, women were leading efforts to save the Affordable Care Act, protest Trump’s Muslim ban, and rally opposition to his cabinet nominees. In Democratic campaigns, women have been increasingly visible, both as foot soldiers and as candidates. According to Emily's List, since the election, there’s been an astounding 1,000 percent increase in pro-choice women running for office.
That women are the ones spearheading these activist projects is not particularly surprising, when you consider that women in the Democratic Party significantly outnumber men. A 2016 survey found that 54 percent of women identify as Democrats or Democrat leaners, as opposed to only 41 percent of men. There’s also evidence that Democratic women’s support for choice, which was already strong, is getting even stronger. In less than a year, Democratic women’s support for choice shot up 18 points, to 85 percent (as compared to 71 percent for Democratic men).
But once again, the Democrats are continuing their long-standing practice of taking our concerns and our votes for granted. Women are the backbone of the party, so why is it that we are the ones perennially asked to sacrifice our rights? Sure, if Democrats continue to make damaging compromises on reproductive rights, they may win over a handful of anti-choice voters. But that gain would be more than offset by what they’d stand to lose—the enthusiasm and activist energies of their most valuable resource: women. For a party that is on life support and needs all the help it can get, that would be a dangerous road.
|
|
|
It Was So Good to Have Trump Gone |
|
|
Wednesday, 31 May 2017 13:01 |
|
Keillor writes: "It was a great relief to have Mr. Twitter out of the country for nine whole days, and the entire country felt it, like when your neighbor with the busted muffler goes away for a while and takes his yappy dog with him, and you realize what a beautiful thing common civility can be."
President Trump touches the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City on May 22. (photo: Ronen Zvulun/EPA)
It Was So Good to Have Trump Gone
By Garrison Keillor, The Washington Post
31 May 17
 t was a great relief to have Mr. Twitter out of the country for nine whole days, and the entire country felt it, like when your neighbor with the busted muffler goes away for a while and takes his yappy dog with him, and you realize what a beautiful thing common civility can be. We were able to turn to the joys of life and forget the absurdities for a while.
And the guy loved being away. Honestly, he doesn’t seem to feel at home in America. He was to the penthouse born and ordinary life makes him uneasy. (Has he ever sat in the grandstand or stood in line for a bratwurst? When did he last mow a lawn?) Riyadh was his Camelot. He was feted by Saudi princes and put up in a magnificent palace and feasted and medallioned and not once did anybody shout unpleasantries. It was like a big Shriners convention and he and his brethren did the sword dance together and he felt truly appreciated at last.
Then to Jerusalem and more good times. Great photo ops. He stood at the Western Wall and looked reverent, an unusual mode for him. And then off to Rome to chum with the pope — “He is something,” President Trump said. “We had a fantastic meeting.” He came out of the meeting saying he intends to work very, very hard for peace, not something he was saying last year.
While he was in Rome, I was standing in the stairwell of a jampacked ferryboat heading to Martha’s Vineyard in a heavy squall. I stood in line in the rain for a taxi and got to the hotel, dripping wet, and my room wasn’t ready so I hauled my suitcases over to a cafe and sat at the counter, next to a blind man who was in a jolly mood. He was 85 and had a mane of wild white hair. He ordered oatmeal for lunch, with raisins, brown sugar and cream. “I don’t get this at home,” he said. He savored his oatmeal as other men might enjoy prime rib. He said that what he missed most since losing his eyesight was hiking in the woods. That, and reading poetry. He has a gizmo he could set a page of print on and an electronic voice would read it, but he hasn’t figured out how to work it. He told me he once had worked in the circus and was sad about the forced retirement of the Ringling Bros. elephants. “Circus elephants have much more interesting lives than zoo elephants,” he said. “They get to go all over the country and walk from the train siding to the venue and enjoy the smells and snack on the vegetation along the way.” Then he asked me to help him home so I did. We walked along the street, like two elephants, his hand on my shoulder. It was very companionable.
We approached a gaggle of girls who stood aside and he perked up when he smelled them. We passed a coffee bar, a candy store, a yard full of lilacs, an Episcopal church where the choir was singing, “Sanctus, sanctus, hosanna in excelsis.” He took it all in with pleasure. I felt like Virgil guiding Dante through the departments of paradise. All my earlier misfortunes had been perfectly aligned to allow me to meet this blind man and absorb some of his happiness. He who was in Rome was never mentioned nor did he even cross my mind until much later.
I felt safer with him gone, frankly. When he is surrounded by admiration, we don’t have to worry that he’ll get in a snit and call for the B-52s. Reverence relaxes him. If you removed the media from the White House and let the man and his loved ones make occasional appearances on the balcony, waving to the cheering crowd on the street, it might be better for us all.
Nothing in the Constitution requires the president to reside in the United States. He could cruise the world in a royal yacht, driving golf balls off the fantail, stopping at major ports for artillery salutes and royal processions. No naysaying would be allowed in the vicinity of him.
Other countries have lived with leaders who are ignorant, poorly tutored, self-obsessed and corrupt, and why can’t we? Let Congress hash things out, with the courts as safeguard, and Him of the Golden Hair and Mighty Eyebrows, go bear his Torch of Greatness to Benighted Peoples in Distant Lands and don’t hurry back.
|
|
I Lost My Lung to Asbestos. I Fear What Trump Will Do to America's Health |
|
|
Wednesday, 31 May 2017 12:55 |
|
Von St. James writes: "Ever since I learned that mesothelioma, the terminal cancer I was diagnosed with when my baby girl was just three and a half months old, was caused by asbestos - a substance I thought had been banned - I have been fighting to bring awareness to this deadly disease and the dangers of asbestos exposure."
'Asbestos has been known to play a part in many cancers, yet it is still not banned in this country.' (photo: Jim Cole/Ap)
ALSO SEE: EPA Halts Obama-Era Rule on Methane Pollution
I Lost My Lung to Asbestos. I Fear What Trump Will Do to America's Health
By Heather Von St. James, Guardian UK
31 May 17
The president’s proposed budget cuts – and slashing of regulations – would weaken the ability of watchdogs to protect us from harmful chemicals
 ver since I learned that mesothelioma, the terminal cancer I was diagnosed with when my baby girl was just three and a half months old, was caused by asbestos – a substance I thought had been banned – I have been fighting to bring awareness to this deadly disease and the dangers of asbestos exposure.
The US surgeon general has said there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, and as early as the 1900s asbestos was suspected to be the cause of mesothelioma. In fact, Dr Irving Selikoff is credited with cementing the link between asbestos use and cases of lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma. The science is clear that, yes, asbestos causes cancer.
This is why this current administration’s outright attack on proven science has me nervous. In the proposed budget cuts, Trump plans on cutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget by 31%. It would eliminate all funding for enactment of the clean power plan, the regulations designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. It would also discontinue funding for climate change research and international climate change programs.
I feel that this administration has an anti-science stance. Recent marches in Washington by scientists, the EPA’s own employees and climate change advocates prove that many more people are worried about where this administration plans to take us – not only the proposed budget cuts, but also cutting back on regulations that are in place for the protection of the public.
In the early 1970s, if some sort of regulation had been in place for asbestos use, my dad might not have brought the deadly fibers home on his work clothes. His work coat that I would wear to do my outdoor chores was covered in a grayish white dust, which we later learned contained asbestos from the drywall taping compound he would sand off the walls.
Some 30 years later, I was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma. At 36 years old I had my left lung removed, along with half my diaphragm, the lining of my heart and a rib. The diaphragm and lining of my heart were replaced with Gore-Tex. I followed that up with four months of chemotherapy and six weeks of radiation – all while trying to raise my baby girl.
The first 18 months of Lily’s life were a blur. My only memories of her during that time are from photos. So much of that period is lost because of my illness. My daughter has been raised with the knowledge of my cancer, and although I remain disease-free 11 years after my surgery, we both know that could change at any moment. No 11-year-old should carry the burden of knowing her mom’s cancer could come back at any time.
If regulations or a ban had been in place, my dad may not have died of kidney cancer just eight years after my battle. Asbestos has been known to play a part in many cancers, yet it is still not banned in this country. The US is a world leader and many countries ask: if the US doesn’t ban the use of asbestos, why should we? Asbestos use is a truly global problem.
Mesothelioma deaths continue to rise, which is a tragedy considering every death could have been prevented. Our own president has been quoted extolling the virtues of asbestos and even claiming that abatement is a mob conspiracy. The man who was chosen to head the EPA has said he remains unconvinced of the dangers of asbestos.
Put these alarming statements together with climate change denial, repealing healthcare and the blatant disregard for human life, is it any wonder so many people are worried about what this administration means for our future?
I’m not worried about my own health. I’m worried about that of my daughter, and all children. The chemical council has a powerful lobby in Washington, one that people like me are trying to fight with our stories.
I’ve lived the nightmare of what asbestos does to a person. I’ve been fighting it for 11 years and I’ve lost countless friends in the mesothelioma community. The death toll continues to rise and until something is done, like stricter regulations or an all-out ban, my fear is that the number is going to keep creeping up. Let’s face it: one death from asbestos exposure is too many, but how many more will it take until they listen?
I for one don’t want to know that number. My hope is that many people will take this as a call to action. You can do something, You can make a difference.
Start locally, in your own city, your own town. Get to know your city council, and introduce yourself to the people who represent you in your state. Make phone calls to your representatives. Get to know the staffers who work on environmental and health care issues and meet with them, email, or call them. Every call makes a difference. Now is the time to speak up and make sure that science, and our environment isn’t put on the chopping block.
|
|
he unsayable in Britain's general election campaign is this. The causes of the Manchester atrocity, in which 22 mostly young people were murdered by a jihadist, are being suppressed to protect the secrets of British foreign policy.
