WHEN he was growing up on the streets of Newark with both of his parents addicted to drugs and his father in jail, going to college wasn’t really on the horizon for Rameck Hunt. He was going to be lucky if he finished high school.

But Rameck had something that the other kids in his neighborhood didn’t have: two friends with whom he would form an unbreakable bond. Together they made a pact to support each other with dreams that in other neighborhoods might seem ordinary, but that in their hardscrabble world seemed improbable. They would not only finish high school but go on to college — and even medical school.

Jaqueline Mroz, Sharing Their Stories, New York Times, October 17, 2008

Hurricane Ike was by far one of the most destructive hurricanes to hit the Texas Gulf Coast.  After reeking havoc on Galveston, Ike made his way inland to Houston downing trees, shattering windows, blowing off roof tops, and generally making a mess of things.  After the storm subsided, the true devastation was known.  For days, Galveston and Houston suffered through post-Ike clean up.

Galveston by far took the brunt of Ike’s fury.  The storm surge, one of the highest in Galveston’s history, tore homes from their pilings and left the city crippled with no electricity, water, or gas.  With most of city’s residents evacuated and the public utility system in shambles, the city was deemed uninhabitable.  The slow road to recovery crept to a halt.  Thousands of children were kept from home and school, while parents tried to determine their next move.  Galveston and its surrounding counties canceled school almost immediately after the storm hit.  Schools that survived Ike’s powerful storm surge lacked the power and water necessary to begin educational instruction.  Plus, with the uncertainty looming over the city, Galveston had more important things to worry about than tardy bells and school books at it tried to put the city back together.  

Houston was spared the storm surge that crippled Galveston but fared just as badly in getting its public utilities back on-line after the hurricane.  The Houston Independent School district, the largest district in the county and state, decided to close school after school officials realized that the majority of its campuses lacked electricity.  Many of the school districts in surrounding counties followed suit.  For weeks after the storm, students who just recently started the school year had an unexpected break.  Parents, many of whom lacked electricity themselves, were left to amuse their children and keep them occupied. 

Normalcy is what everyone craves after the stress of a hurricane.  Getting back to the regular routine provides familiarity and a sense of hope.  Everyone now compares every Gulf Coast hurricane to Katrina.  The Texas Gulf Coast will now compare every other gulf hurricane to Ike.  But most assuredly, the true effect on children will not be known until sometime in the future.  For sure, the children in this area have seen a disruption to their daily lives.  Children, in Houston, who weathered the storm, lived through weeks without cell phones, IPODs, T.V. and cable.  Children living in Galveston faced the uncertainty of whether school buildings would be up and running, or whether school would resume at all.  Every Texas Gulf Coast school district is in the process of determining how to deal all the days missed due to the storm.  Getting children back in school is the parent’s and school’s number one priority.  Because, it gives children a safe haven and a sense of security that will help them survive the days ahead.

In the wake of Hurricane Ike, government officials will have to determine what lessons were learned by this disaster.  The lessons learned from Katrina were put to good use in coping with Ike’s fury but the more things change, in some ways the more they stay the same.  Generally, some of the issues faced after Katrina were felt throughout the Texas Gulf Coast:

·       Children were displaced from their homes.  During Hurricane Katrina, many children were separated from parents for weeks and months, which hampered efforts to get children back on track.  Most of the folks in New Orleans and surrounding areas had no homes to go to once the storm had passed.  However, that same scenario was not repeated post-Ike.  For sure, homes in Galveston were crushed.  But unlike in New Orleans, many of the homes in the area were second homes and vacation homes for the many tourists that visit.  Though the storm surge swept through many homes, many remained standing, ready for repair in the hurricane’s aftermath.  In Houston, homes were without power but not destroyed.  So the children in Ike’s path were possibly better able to handle the storm without having to deal with the stress of changing schools and looking for permanent shelter.

·       Schools were unprepared for how to deal with the aftermath of the disaster. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many students were sent to school districts far away from their home state of Louisiana.  Texas saw the greatest increase in students who made many Texas cities their home after the devastating hurricane.  Many of the children from Louisiana were horribly behind in many areas and struggled to keep up with the rigorous curriculum presented.  School districts also were unprepared to take on the responsibility of educating tens of thousands of displaced children.  The same scenario again was not replayed post-Ike.  Most students were out of school for a little while but able to return to their home districts and schools once school resumed.  In Galveston, children were moved from their home district to other school districts in the surrounding area.  However, these districts were under the same curriculum and standards set out by the Texas Department of Education.  So even though students changed school buildings, they were tracked through the same curriculum they would have been learning in their home district.

·       Recovery and Rebuilding-Galveston and Houston set about the immediate task of recovery and rebuilding immediately after the hurricane Ike made land with the support of federal, state, and local government.  The same cannot be said for the recovery and rebuilding of New Orleans which is still bogged down in bureaucratic red-tape and has really never gotten off the ground.

 Ike devastated this area for sure.  As more data comes in, we will be able to know the true effects of the IKE on Texas children. 

      Please take a look at the following articles and blogs detailing the days and nights after Ike hit and what effect it had on children:

Students Return to School

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hurricane/ike/6016769.html

HISD Out Because of the Power Outages

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hurricane/6002751.html

Blog about school openings and closings

http://blogs.chron.com/hurricanes/schools/

Families Return to Galveston

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hurricane/ike/6017310.html

Keeping Kids Happy Without Power

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/moms/6003445.html

Child Support Payments

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2008_4639183

Children’s Injuries in the Aftermath of Ike

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2008_4638276

School Closings Due to Hurricane Ike

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2008_4637958

Crime In General and Crime Against Children During Ike

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/morenews/6016778.html

Since I’ve argued against continued steroid testing of high school athletes, maintaining that steroid abuse by police officers empirically poses a more significant threat, I wanted to point readers to a column by Donald Hooton, father of a steroid using teen who committed suicide for whom Texas’ steroid testing law is named. Writes Hooton in the July 14 Dallas News:

Out of the preliminary findings, two positive tests resulted from more than 10,000 tests conducted by the National Center for Drug Free Sports and the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory. But the law’s primary purpose is to prevent our children from turning to steroids by providing a deterrent – the risk of getting caught gives our kids a solid reason to say no.

Consider speed traps on highways. Many adults and teens drive the speed limit not because they know that doing such is safer and saves fuel, but because they know someone is watching – the fear of getting caught is greater than the desire to disobey the law. What happens when you take away the speed traps? People start breaking the law.

Whether the program yielded two positives, 400 positives or 1,000 positives, no one should be drawing conclusions about the extent of steroid use based on these preliminary lab results. The program was never designed to measure steroid use among high school athletes.

According to the statistics from the 2007 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, recognized as the premier organization in this field, 3.9 percent of high school students are abusing anabolic steroids nationally. Given that 10,407 students were tested in Texas in the past year, the results should have yielded at least 400 positive tests. Based on the preliminary results that we’ve read about, what we do know is:

• The random testing preliminary results of Texas students identified that 99.98 percent of the sampled student-athletes tested clean for performance-enhancing drugs.

• At least two kids are going to get help before something tragic happens. (I can only wish that my son had been “caught” and been able to receive help.)

• Ten thousand kids know firsthand that we are taking this issue seriously here in Texas.

• Millions of Texas families now know about the dangers of anabolic steroids.

Those results are, to me, an excellent definition of success.

The speed trap analogy is a particularly poor one. If officers only gave tickets at 2 out of every 10,000 traffic stops, there’d be scarce incentive to continue them. Speed traps make money because traffic violations are a lot more common than that.

Also, even if the “program was never designed to measure steroid use among high school athletes,” the results are more directly probative than a survey that merely asks verbally about steroid use. The size of the sample is quite large and Texas specific. I don’t think we can rely on that 3.9% figure based on these results - certainly not if next year’s round of steroid testing duplicates the lower number.

I’ll agree with Hooton the program served a short-term public relations benefit, but that has already been realized. Now the public relations message is actually being undermined by extremely de minimus results.

To the extent steroid abuse is a widespread problem, these data show the main nexus of its use does not lie with high school athletes. That means education and prevention resources are likely adequate for that population and enforcement spending (the 10,000 tests cost $3 million) should be reserved for groups where testing gets more bang for its buck.

It was reported by both the Winnipeg Free Press and the Volokh Conspiracy that Child and Family Services removed two kids from their father’s home due to “concerns their father — an alleged neo-Nazi — was filling their heads and marking their bodies with messages of hate.” The parents claim “their right to freedom of speech shouldn’t be interfered with and [deny] they are polluting the children’s minds.” However, there are clearly other indications the couple might be unfit parents since “the little girl had missed 39 days of school this year. She told authorities that’s because her parents sleep in and don’t want to get her ready or take her. There were also expressed concerns about alcohol and drug use in the home.”

Eugene Volokh and others have expressed concern over the potential repercussions of these actions of removing children from parents with unpopular beliefs.

Nonetheless, the article — and other press coverage I’d seen — does suggest that a big part of this matter turns on what the parents are teaching the children. (According to the CFS, “Religious (and) political practices that would be harmful to children and cause them to be at risk would be one of the considerations when assessing risk to a child,” and CFS’s definition of harm seems to go beyond imminent danger of physical harm, such as when a religious practice leads parents to refuse to treat their children’s illnesses.) And while I agree that children can indeed be harmed by their parents’ teaching them bad ideas, it strikes me as very dangerous for the government to be able to take children away from parents on these grounds. Imagine whom the government might decide to turn against next.

Sources and Additional Reading on this Case:

McIntyre, Mike. Alleged Neo-Nazi’s Kids Taken. Winnipeg Free Press, June 9, 2008.

McIntyre, Mike. Mother Calls Self ‘White Nationalist’. Winnipeg Free Press, June 11, 2008.

McIntyre, Mike. Alleged Neo-Nazi’s May Get Kids. Winnipeg Free Press, June 11, 2008.

McIntyre, Mike. Raising Baby Bigots: Should Child Welfare Intervene?. Winnipeg Free Press, June 14, 2008.

However, since the ruling, a legal blogger has pointed out that the federal government passed a law in 2006 allowing for this use of the death penalty in the military. Amazingly, the plaintiff, the defendant, the Court Majority and the Dissent all failed to mention this law during the arguments and the decision of the case. As a result, the state of Louisiana is requesting that the Court reconsider its ruling since the discovery of a federal law allowing this use of the death penalty may undermine the Court’s argument of a national consensus against it. However, Louisiana recognized that even if the Court agrees to reconsider its ruling, the ruling may still be upheld due to the Court’s independent judgment against this use of the death penalty.

Please click here to see the Petition for Rehearing.

From the SCOTUSblog:

The state of Louisiana on Monday asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling a month ago striking down the death penalty for the crime of child rape. The rehearing petition, citing an omission in the Court’s opinion of any mention of a federal law on that issue, was filed late Monday afternoon. The petition in Kennedy v. Louisiana (07-343) can be found here.

Noting that the Court “almost never grants petitions for rehearing,” the state’s filing said this was “the rare exception.” It cited an 1875 ruling (Ambler v. Whipple), saying that an omission “material to the decision of the case” makes “a strong appeal for reargument.”

The petition said that either the rehearing should be granted, or the Court should “first seek the views” of the U.S. Solicitor General. Earlier, after the discovery of the omitted statute from the Court’s opinion, the Solicitor General’s office said that, if a rehearing plea were filed, it would examine it and “consider what steps are appropriate.”

Under the Court’s rules, a rehearing petition is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court “at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision.” The other side in a case is not allowed to file a response, unless the Court specifically asks it to do so. The Court’s rules add that, unless there are “extraordinary circumstances,” rehearing will not be granted unless a response is first requested.

The decision in the Louisiana case, issued on June 25, came on a vote of 5-4, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing for the majority. One of those five would have to support rehearing, presumably along with the four dissenters, for that to happen.

The Court’s decision had two parts: a survey of laws and official actions, leading the Court to conclude that there was a consensus against the death penalty for child rape, and a separate expression of the Court’s own “independent judgment” about whether capital punishment should ever be available for a crime that did not result in the victim’s death — a point on which the Court said no.

In the first part, the Court noted the absence of any federal law imposing a death penalty for child rape. After the decision was issued, a military law expert noted that omission. The expert noted a 2006 law by Congress which, the expert said, authorized the death penalty for rape of a child under military law — the law that prescribes crimes and penalties for members of the military services.

A spate of publicity, beginning in The New York Times, led the U.S. Solicitor General’s office to notify the Court of the omission, and to offer to comment on it, if asked. The government was not a party in the case, but it said it should have noticed the fact of the federal law’s existence and told the Court.

Monday was the deadline for Louisiana to seek rehearing of the case. It did so in a petition signed by counsel of record, Georgetown law professor Neal K. Katyal.

The death row inmate involved in the case, Patrick Kennedy, was represented by Stanford law professor Jeffrey L. Fisher. On Monday, responding to media inquiries, Fisher issued a statement saying the 2006 provision could not have applied to a civilian like Kennedy, and, in any event, that provision may not even remain valid.

The rehearing plea said that the omission would bear not only on the Court’s discussion of a “national consensus” against the death penalty for child rape, but also would have an effect on the part of the ruling in which the Justices relied on “independent judgment.”

Louisiana conceded that the Court might reach the same decision again if it reheard the case, but said rehearing was warranted because that “protects the public’s trust that the Court has before it all relevant information before reaching a final decision,” it “safeguards the perception of fairness,” and it “ensures that the Court’s final decision accurately reflects the state of facts and the law.”

If the Court believes that its decision could stand alone on the exercise of “independent judgment,” that should still lead to rehearing, because, the petition argued, that would make the “national consensus” calculus less important in future cases on applying the death penalty.

A denial of rehearing, the petition argued, would sow confusion about which side of the Court’s calculus weighed the most.

The Houston Chronicle Article:

Female members of the polygamist sect are refusing to answer questions before a grand jury in West Texas meeting this morning to consider criminal child abuse charges against the group.

About nine women have been subpoenaed and about half have made it into the meeting room on the Schleicher County courthouse square, but all come out quickly after telling the grand jury nothing, said a 25-year-old member of the sect who would only identify himself as “Ben.”

“They are all taking the fifth,” he said as he and another member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints were snapping photos of government officials from inside their SUV in the courthouse parking lot.

Those called to testify have the right to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege if the information they give could be used against them. Only one male member of the sect has been subpoenaed: Willie Jessop, the former bodyguard of jailed president and sect prophet, Warren Jeffs.

“It’ll all come out,” Willie Jessop said as he waited in the Schleicher County Courthouse to be called before grand jurors.

Asked if he expected members of his church to be indicted, he said. “I don’t know. I hope not.”

Jessop was stopped early today in Eldorado by law enforcement and handed a subpoena.

When asked how FLDS members were doing, he said: “Hopefully, they can answer that for themselves.”

One of the women who was called before the grand jury today was a 16-year-old at the center of a civil battle over which attorney represents her. The teen was married at 15 to 34-year-old Raymond Jessop, the son of Jeffs’ chief deputy, Merrill Jessop. She was the third girl from the Jeffs family to marry Raymond Jessop.

Two of her sisters were also married to Jessop. Also called before the grand jury were:

* Leann Jeffs, 17, who has a 1-year-old daughter.

* Veda Keate, 19, who was forced to give a third DNA sample to the Texas Attorney General’s Office earlier this month. It is not clear why another was needed. She has a 2-year-old daughter.

* Sarah Barlow Draper, 37, registered nurse and mother of four. She now works at an Abilene hospital where she lives with her children. She was once misclassified as an underage teen-ager by Texas Child Protective Services but proved to a court she was not. She is the former wife of ousted FLDS member Daniel Barlow, who was once mayor of Colorado City, Ariz., where the FLDS is mostly based.

* Annette Jeffs, Warren Jeffs first wife and the mother of the 16-year-old who was also called to testify.

Grand jurors filed into their meeting room shortly before 9 a.m. There, they will listen as lawyers from the Texas Attorney General’s Office present evidence that could result in indictments against members of the nation’s largest polygamist group for their role in arranging underage marriages.

The state of Texas in April raided the FLDS-owned Yearning For Zion Ranch north of Eldorado after receiving information that girls under age 18 were being placed in “spiritual marriages” with men.

Attorney General Greg Abbott entered the grand jury room at about 9 a.m. He is expected to oversee the presentation of evidence by his staff attorneys, Angela Goodwin and prosecution chief Eric Nichols.

Abbott’s presence at the proceeding is interpreted by those close to the investigation as an indication that indictments are imminent. However, a key issue today will be whether the state’s reliance on members of the FLDS, including several young girls, will stymie the pursuit of criminal charges.

During the grand jury’s first meeting on this matter in June, sources familiar with the proceedings have said, the girls took advantage of their Fifth Amendment rights to not answer questions on the basis that the information they gave could incriminate them.

Grand jury proceedings are closed to the public. A grand jury is made of local residents who consider the prosecution’s evidence and determine whether it is sufficient to charge defendants.

Even if indictments are returned, it is likely that the names of those indicted will be kept secret until after arrests have been made.

Since the April raid at the FLDS’s Yearning For Zion Ranch, church members have given different names and information to authorities, slowing the investigation process.

More than 400 children were removed from the ranch by Texas Child Protective Services after the raid, but they were returned a month later after the Texas Supreme Court said the agency did not prove that the children were so in danger that removal was the only option.

The FLDS began moving hundreds of its members to the 1,700-acre Yearning For Zion Ranch in 2004, about the time their president and prophet, Warren Jeffs, became wanted by police for his role in forcing young girls to marry in Utah.

The FLDS claims the twin border cities of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., as home with satellite settlements in South Dakota and other states and in Canada.

Jeffs was convicted last year on two counts of being an accomplice to rape for his role in forcing a 14-year-old sect member to marry her 19-year-old cousin.

Since the raid on the ranch, the FLDS has announced it will no longer allow the marriage of girls younger than 18.

The FLDS is not affiliated with mainstream Mormonism, which denounced polygamy more than 100 years ago.

The New York Times Magazine also wrote an interesting article that discusses what some of the FLDS women have been going through.

A court case would be quite interesting if it visits the two broader issue potentially at stake: the appropriate place of religious expression of students in public schools and the balance between students’ individual rights and the need for schools to ensure an ordered environment for education. Two previous Supreme Court cases come to mind that somewhat address both of these issues respectively: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.

West Virginia (1943) is one of the so-called “Jehovah’s Witnesses Cases” from the 1930s and 1940s that helped to define more clearly which rights the First Amendment protects. This case was brought by Jehovah’s Witnesses who objected to the compulsory pledge of allegiance recitation in public schools. The Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs, stating that forcing public school students to recite the pledge of allegiance violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Probably more on point, Tinker (1969) dealt with public school students who were suspended for wearing black armbands with the peace sign on them to school in protest of the ongoing Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students, stating that the school could not punish the students for wearing the armbands without evidence that this action was required to ensure order in the school.

Does this particular rule of restricting the length of boys’ hair pass the “Tinker Test?” That will (potentially) be for the courts to decide.

The most recent Huston Chronicle article:

The school board of this rural Fort Bend County school district denied a request to let a 5-year-old boy with long hair attend kindergarten this fall.

The parents of Adriel Arocha want the boy to wear his hair long for religious reasons, but his shoulder-length locks are in conflict with the district’s hair code.

The board voted unanimously to uphold an earlier decision made by district administrators who said the child must cut his hair if he wants to attend school in Needville.

The parents of the child, Michelle Betenbaugh and Kenney Arocha, decided to appeal that ruling to the board, which heard the case Wednesday night.

Betenbaugh told the school board that Native American religions have no books or Bibles to consult but said the practice of boys and men not cutting their hair is well-known.

Kenney Arocha said he was proud of his heritage and asking him to cut his son’s hair would be like asking him to give up his constitutional rights.

“Which rights would you take next?” he said.

But Needville Superintendent Curtis Rhodes said the child is not actually a student in the district, and it was premature to present the issue to the school board Wednesday night.

Nevertheless, Rhodes urged the board to deny the parents’ appeal of the administration’s earlier decision.

The family owns land in Needville and is in the process of moving to the city. They plan to register the child at the elementary school.

The attorney for the boy and his parents, Hal Hale, said he will discuss the matter with his clients before deciding what legal action to take. Hale said he might seek a temporary injunction asking a judge to force the district to let the child attend school. Or, Hale said, legal action might be delayed until the child actually enrolls in the district and tries to attend class with long hair.

Needville has strict rules about long hair on boys.

Betenbaugh is in the process of moving from Meadows Place to Needville and told school officials in May she planned to register her son for kindergarten and that he had long hair.

According to legal experts, courts have repeatedly backed educators in numerous lawsuits brought by students and parents regarding dress codes. But the same courts have granted students and parents some rights when it comes to hairstyles tied to religion.

Legal rulings regarding challenges to hair codes on religious grounds give school districts the ability to grant exceptions.

Betenbaugh said she has consulted lawyers about the issue and plans to take the matter to court.

Unfortunately child slavery, isn’t isolated to a few countries like Haiti and Camboida, but is instead a problem worldwide (UNICEF). There are numerous organizations trying to improve the lives of these children and to help prevent human trafficking in general. This global tragedy will take a global effort to try and prevent it. Below is information about current U.S. laws and policy regarding this issue:

“The Office of the Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, headed by Dr. Paula J. Dobriansky, coordinates U.S. foreign relations on a variety of global issues.” One of the offices she coordinates is the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (G/TIP), headed by Amb. Mark Lagon. That office “provides the tools to combat trafficking in persons and assists in the coordination of anti-trafficking efforts both worldwide and domestically.”

There’s a lot of information on G/TIP’s website about United States policies and efforts in this area. Here are a few excerpts.

In 2003, the United States strengthened its ability to fight child sex tourism by passing the Prosecutorial Remedies and other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act and the Trafficking Victim’s Protection Reauthorization Act. These laws increase penalties to a maximum of 30 years in prison for engaging in CST. Since the passage of the PROTECT Act, there have been over 20 indictments and over a dozen convictions of child sex tourists. The Department of Homeland Security has also developed the “Operation Predator” initiative to combat child exploitation, child pornography, and child sex tourism. The United States is also funding the NGO World Vision to conduct major public awareness and deterrence campaigns overseas that include public service announcements, internet messaging, brochures, posters, and billboards.

Facts About Child Sex Tourism

In addition to enforcing these laws, the United States also issues a report each year in which it ranks countries into 3 tiers. The tiers represent how well the country is combating human trafficking.

The Tiers

TIER 1 Countries whose governments fully comply with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act’s (TVPA) minimum standards TIER 2 Countries whose governments do not fully comply with the TVPA’s minimum standards, but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with those standards TIER 2 WATCH LIST Countries whose governments do not fully comply with the TVPA’s minimum standards, but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with those standards AND: a) The absolute number of victims of severe forms of trafficking is very significant or is significantly increasing; or b) There is a failure to provide evidence of increasing efforts to combat severe forms of trafficking in persons from the previous year; or c) The determination that a country is making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with minimum standards was based on commitments by the country to take additional future steps over the next year TIER 3 Countries whose governments do not fully comply with the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so

Countries in Tier 3 can be subject to certain sanctions by the US.

The annual Trafficking in Persons Report serves as the primary diplomatic tool through which the U.S. Government encourages partnership and increased determination in the fight against forced labor, sexual exploitation, and modern-day slavery.

This problem is global and children in the United States are at risk as well.

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005, Title III. Sect. 2(5)

5) No known studies exist that quantify the problem of trafficking in children for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation in the United States. According to a report issued by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania in 2001, as many as 300,000 children in the United States are at risk for commercial sexual exploitation, including trafficking, at any given time.

Global Law Enforcement Data

The Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2003 added to the original law a new requirement that foreign governments provide the Department of State with data on trafficking investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences in order to be considered in full compliance with the TVPA’s minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking (Tier 1). The 2004 TIP Report collected this data for the first time. The 2007 TIP Report data shows for the first time, a breakout of the number of total prosecutions and convictions that related to labor trafficking, placed in parentheses.

Year	Prosecutions	Convictions	New or Amended Legislation
2003	7,992	2,815	24
2004	6,885	3,025	39
2005	6,178	4,379	40
2006	5,808	3,160	21
2007	5,682 (490)	3,427 (326)	28

The numbers in parentheses are those of labor trafficking prosecutions and convictions.

An excerpt from an “Interview of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell” by Chris Hansen of Dateline, Dec. 11, 2003, Washington, D.C.

MR. HANSEN: Why should Americans be concerned about the sex trade in Cambodia?

SECRETARY POWELL: How can we turn away? If we want to have friends in the world, if we want to have better relations with the countries of the world, we have to help them with this kind of problem.

You know, can you imagine the spread of disease that is taking place with this kind of activity? Can you imagine what will happen to these girls when they’re 15 or 20?  What will become of them?  They’ll have no education. They will be — they will have been used and tossed away and ruined.

And that affects not just these girls, it affects that country.  It affects the family life in that country, it affects society development, it affects income, and, therefore, it affects foreign policy.

So, as the Secretary of State, why is the Secretary of State worried about trafficking in persons?  Because it deals with foreign policy.  It deals with economic and social development within a country.  And a country that does not treasure its youth and protect its youth is not going to be moving in the right direction in the 21st century.

And a nation such as ours, which says we are a moral nation, and that we have a value system, that we would allow our citizens to go over and fuel that trade, by their presence and by their money and by their rotten exploitation of these children, we wouldn’t be living up to our values if we didn’t do something about it.

MR. HANSEN:  What can you do to crack down on the countries involved?  What kind of sanctions would you levy?

SECRETARY POWELL:  Well, there’s a lot of things we can do.  We can withhold foreign assistance money, we can make them not eligible for certain programs that we have, and the law requires us to look at these kinds of remedies.  And what we have found with this Tier 1, 2, 3 system, as time comes every year for the report to be written, a lot of countries want to know, what Tier are we in?  We’re not going to be in Tier 3, are we?  It’s a heck of a stigma to suddenly show up in Tier 3.

Now, we also recognize that there’s trafficking in the United States.  There is exploitation taking place in our own country.  So we’re not totally clean on this and we make that clear.  And the kind of exploitation that you’re talking about in this piece that deals with the sexual exploitation of children, there’s lots of other exploitation that we’re worried about, a lot of other tracking in persons:  for sweatshops, to go in the mines, young people who are not getting an education but are being exploited for their manual capacity as young people, and they’re being ruined just as well as these young people in the sex trade in Cambodia or elsewhere in the world.

The newest Trafficking in Persons Report released in June 2008 has detailed descriptions of what countries around the world are doing to help stop human trafficking. Here is an excerpt from Cambodia’s section of the report:

The Royal Government of Cambodia does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; however, it is making significant efforts to do so. Cambodia is placed on Tier 2 for the first time since 2004 due to the government’s increased engagement in combating trafficking in persons over the previous year. The government created a national anti-trafficking task force to improve the interagency response to trafficking and coordination with civil society, increased law enforcement action against traffickers and complicit officials, and undertook prevention activities. In February 2008, Cambodia’s new Law on the Suppression of Human Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation was promulgated and went into effect immediately. This legislation provides law enforcement authorities the power to investigate all forms of trafficking and is a powerful tool in efforts to prosecute and convict traffickers and have them face stringent punishments. High-level government officials have spoken publicly about a “zero-tolerance” policy for officials profiting from or colluding in trafficking in persons.

This is a major global problem. How would you rate the actions of the U.S. so far in addressing it? The State Department website leaves me with the impression that the U.S. is taking significant action to help these children, however, the Nightline, Dateline, and other (here, here, and here) reports make me wonder if U.S. and other nations’ policies have had much effect at all. How effective do you think these policies are and what more should American and other countries be doing to help put an end to this tragedy?

One can safely assume the sex health education taught in Goose Creek (Baytown) ISD meets the state’s abstinence-only-until-marriage guidelines.  If the 14 year old’s knowledge of pregnancy and childbirth was limited to the information Texas teachers are allowed to provide adolescents, she knew little if anything at all.

An irony in this case is the fact that the class was being taught the week the girl gave birth.  Another is that three weeks later (4/23/08) the program is being questioned by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.   Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data are staggering:

About 1/3 of girls in the United States get pregnant before age 20.  In 2006, a total of 435,427 infants were born to mothers aged 15–19 years, a birth rate of 41.9 live births per 1,000 women in this age group.  More than 80% of these births were unintended…  Although pregnancy and birth rates among girls aged 15–19 years have declined 34% since 1991, birth rates increased for the first time in 2006 (from 40.5 per 1,000 women in this age group in 2005 to 41.9 in 2006).  

Although this article will not discuss at length concerns regarding sexually transmitted disease (STD), keep in mind that unprotected sex presents the potential for unwanted pregnancy and potentially life-threatening illness.  According to the CDC 2006 National Surveillance Data for Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis girls age 15-19 have the overwhelmingly highest rates of Chlamydia.  Less notorious than the other two STD studied or HIV, Chlamydia is extremely transmissible, often undiagnosed or misdiagnosed as a more benign yeast infection and causes painful Pelvic Inflammatory Disease which if untreated can lead to sterility or even death.

Yet school age children in Texas and 27 other states are essentially taught to just-say-no. Their state’s acceptance of federal funding for abstinence-only education disallows teachers and school administrators from offering any additional prevention information.  Seventeen states have said, “no thanks.” 

Abstinence-only education has a lengthy and complicated history.  Emphasis on abstinence-only education began during the Reagan era.  After a brief period of openness during the early 1990’s, the policy was signed into law as an attachment to the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Act. The statute allocates funding only to states that promise their schools will teach students –including sexually inquisitive and active teens– to simply pledge abstinence.  Specifically, Title V, Section 510 states that “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program which: 

1. has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity
2. teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children
3. teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems
4. teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity
5. teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects
6. teaches that bearing children out-of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society
7. teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances
8. teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Educators, youth advocates, and family planning, public health, and HIV experts initially objected with no luck and no data at the time to convince the conservative Congress otherwise.  Despite independent studies suggesting oherwise, the Bush administration bolstered funding for the policy.  Furthermore, it has ignored data showing no significant behavioral changes with abstinence-only educated children versus those receiving comprehensive sex education.  A study commissioned by the government was quietly released over a year ago with little more than a press release.   

Comprehensive sex education incorporates abstinence into a more complete discussion of family planning and safer sex; and also can be tailored for age appropriate information.  Astinence only advocates often suggest that sex education should be provided by parents in the home.  If that is the case, why have you and I spent over a billion dollars telling school children to just say no?

Key critiques of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs include: 

> Abstinence only as a program goal is out of touch with current trends.  In fact, 95% of Americans have intercourse before marriage.

> Many abstinence-only programs withheld vital information such as accurate condom efficacy or dispensed blatant misinformation such as claims that 50% of gay youth have HIV and 10% of women commit suicide post-abortion.  Although many have corrected their curriculum, some persist in promoting false information. 

> Abstinence-only programs have failed to demonstrate behavioral changes based on extensive evaluation.

> Conversely, evaluation of comprehensive sexuality education programs (virtually all include abstinence education) show that many help youth delay sex and learn how to use condoms if/when they decide to have sex.

> Declines in adolescent sexual activity (often touted as proof that the abstinence-only program works) preceded widespread federal funding of abstinence-only education and are attributed to better use of contraceptives.  Sadly, data also show that those numbers are again on the rise.  

For those eager to suggest only certain liberal organizations intent on encouraging underage sex oppose the policy, think again.  The list of organizations publically opposed to the failed policy includes: the American Medical Association, Office of National AIDS Policy, Institute of Medicine, CDC, National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Academy of Pediatrics. 

It is time for policy makers to just say no to a failed policy that serves ideology, not youth or public health. The situation of an unwanted pregnancy in which school girls across America find themselves, IS shameful.  However, the shame is not on them for becoming pregnant.  The shame is on policy makers who have failed to speak truth to the complex topic of sex.  The shame is that ineffective abstinence only programs have received $1.5 billion tax dollars.  Conversely, zero tax dollars are spent on comprehensive curriculum which has been proven more effective by states that refused federal funds.  

For more information — including tips for discussing sex with your own children — check out the following websites:

Centers for Disease Control — http://cdc.gov

Advocates for Youth — http://www.advocatesforyouth.org

National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy — http://www.thenationalcampaign.org

The Healthy Teen Network — http://www.healthyteennetwork.org