Editorials from around New England:
CONNECTICUT Three racial episodes. Three different outcomes. It’s time to fix Connecticut’s hate crime law.
The Hartford Courant
Dec. 1
Three troubling recent incidents involving apparent racial bias have brought Connecticut’s hate crimes laws into focus, but the way the laws have been applied has been inconsistent - in only one of the three was a hate crime charge filed, although it easily could have been in the other two. It’s time to revisit the legislation and have a wider debate about the what the law is trying to accomplish.
In the first incident, two University of Connecticut students were charged with a hate crime after allegedly chanting the N-word as they walked through a campus parking lot late at night.
In the second, an Andover woman was cited for creating a public disturbance at the Shoppes at Buckland Hills in Manchester after allegedly telling a woman and her daughters, who were wearing hijabs, that they should go back to their own country, among other things.
In the third, a Plainville man was charged with disorderly conduct last week after allegedly draping himself in a Confederate flag and running up and down his driveway as his next-door neighbor, a 12-year-old black girl, waited for the school bus.
The three incidents have one thing in common: racist and hateful attitudes. But the way police and prosecutors responded to them in three different ways shows the need for clarity and consistency about where and how the law should be applied. There needs to be broader understanding about where the line lies between speech that is criminal and that which is objectionable.
As racial fault lines continue to widen, understanding what a law can and cannot do is critical to any sort of constructive movement forward. Is the law meant to change behavior, or just to punish? The concept behind the law is sound: Crimes committed with a racist intent merit a more serious consequence. But the uneven application of the law across the state weakens its intent.
One section of Connecticut law deals with intimidation by bigotry or bias and various degrees thereof. Another section broadly criminalizes “ridicule.” The laws should give police clear direction about what crimes, under what circumstances, should be charged.
The UConn students in the first incident were charged under a law that states: “Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor.”
Professor Douglas Spencer, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Connecticut law school, told The Courant’s Daniela Altimari that the statute is “unconstitutionally vague.”
“The First Amendment protects against laws that suppress speech based on its content and/or its viewpoint,” Mr. Spencer said. “The 14th Amendment protects against laws that are so vague police and prosecutors have unfettered discretion to criminalize speech they disagree with, and that are so overbroad they criminalize behavior that is clearly acceptable.”
Regarding the second incident in Manchester, police spokesman Lt. Ryan Shea told The Courant’s Jesse Leavenworth the confrontation did not rise to the level of a hate crime.
“Certainly it was disturbing to the victim in terms of the interaction with this woman and the basis of her statements,” Lt. Shea said. “However, it wasn’t threatening in nature. It wasn’t violent in nature.”
In the Plainville incident, 49-year-old Anthony Esposito does not face a hate-crime charge. He was charged with breach of peace after a June incident and disorderly conduct more recently after his appalling actions with the Confederate flag. To fly a Confederate flag is one thing, but to taunt a person with it is different.
Angela Chapman told The Courant’s David Owens that Mr. Esposito engaged in “constant intimidation” and used the Confederate “flag as a tool to harass us, intimidate us.” It could be argued that Mr. Esposito’s behavior qualified him for a threatening charge or a hate crime.
In any of these cases, a different interpretation may have led to a different outcome. That speaks to a need for state lawmakers to take action. Without more clarity, the door is left open to wider interpretation of how the laws apply to the same behavior.
How these laws are crafted has deep implications for society and the role of law enforcement in the process. There is no simple answer here, but the underlying issue is critical. How we address racial bias and inequity within Connecticut speaks to our collective character.
Online: https://bit.ly/36eQ7Fj
___
MAINE
A cancer diagnosis shouldn’t lead to financial ruin
Bangor Daily News
Dec. 5
Cancer is a horrible disease that prematurely ends far too many lives. In America, those who are diagnosed with cancer face an added worry - the costs of their treatment.
More than 40 percent of patients who receive a new cancer diagnosis lose their entire life savings because of the cost of their treatment, according to a study published last year in The American Journal of Medicine. The average decline in net worth, which includes a loss of income and depleted assets, was $92,000 two years after diagnosis.
It would be easy to blame Americans for not saving enough money, but this is the only developed country where medical care is a leading contributor to bankruptcy. Two-thirds of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. are tied to medical issues.
So, clearly big changes are needed in America’s health care system. Bills to lower prescription drug prices - which all four members of Maine’s congressional delegation have introduced and supported - and to require more transparency in medical costs and billing are helpful. And, extending affordable health insurance to more Americans through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion are improvements.
But, when people with health insurance can still be driven into bankruptcy by the cost of needed medical care - or worse, die because they cannot afford treatment - our system clearly is not working.
The Trump administration has long promised a replacement for the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans lawmakers spent years trying to repeal, but nothing has been forthcoming. Instead, it has weakened the act through administrative actions and a court challenge, which the administration supports, could gut the act.
Democratic candidates for president, by contrast, have numerous plans for major health care overhauls. There are many models to follow, including some already in place in America, like Medicare, which is popular among its recipients.
We’re not sure what form a new system should take, but moving to a system that provides affordable health care (not just health insurance) to all Americans is long overdue.
Health care is likely to play a central role in the 2020 election, just as it did in 2018. Health care is a top concern for Americans, according to polling by the Pew Research Center. A quarter of Democratic voters listed health care as their top concern, twice as many as rated the next issue - climate change and energy - as their most important issues, according to a Kaiser Health Tracking poll last month.
Cost is one reason so many Americans are concerned about health care. In a March Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans said they worry “a great deal” about the availability and affordability of health care; 25 percent said they worry “a fair amount.”
In an April Gallup poll, 51 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat worried about being able to cover the medical costs in case of an accident or serious illness.
Remaking the American health care system, of course, is no simple thing. It will take years, and there will be much debate about its elements and cost. But, we should all be able to agree that a system that drives people to financial ruin when they are diagnosed with an illness like cancer is not acceptable.
Online: https://bit.ly/2OUjAhP
___
MASSACHUSETTS
Court ruling a victory for open government
The Boston Globe
Dec. 5
We want to know: When the state launches investigations of people or organizations accused of discriminating on the basis of disability, race, sexual orientation, or gender, that information is of immediate public interest. Opening the records of investigations makes it possible to track patterns of bias and may encourage other victims of discrimination to come forward.
That’s why a recent Massachusetts Appeals court ruling is so important. It forced the state to disclose more information about the discrimination complaints it chooses to investigate. What’s more, it should help victims of discrimination by building trust in the state’s antidiscrimination procedures, a bedrock part of the Commonwealth’s effort to ensure a fair society.
Massachusetts residents who have suffered discrimination in employment, housing, education, and many other contexts can lodge complaints with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, whose mandate covers discrimination based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and other factors. The commission has the power to award monetary damages, reinstate fired workers, or require accommodations for wronged individuals.
The commission, which received just under 3,000 complaints in 2018, has helped hold high-profile individuals and institutions in Massachusetts accountable, including municipalities, colleges, and the state judiciary. The commission’s investigations are not a formality - plenty of cases do not result in penalties.
And, crucially, its work isn’t secret: Those accused of discrimination are notified as soon as the commission launches an investigation and are given the chance to give their side.
For years, the public had access to the investigations that hadn’t yet resulted in a determination. Since 2015, though, the commission has attempted to put up a wall of secrecy by refusing to turn over information about investigations that it has accepted but not yet decided, refusing public records requests from the Globe and others. In defending its decision to stonewall, the state cited fears that if complaints became public, that could lead to retaliation that would deter other victims of discrimination from coming forward. (Notably, though, the agency could not document any instances of that actually occurring, and the fact that subjects are notified of the investigation would imply retaliation is possible even when records are sealed.)
But when the public can keep an eye on the process, it tends to keep everyone honest. And it builds confidence in the outcome: The public can see that the process is thorough and that the commission isn’t sweeping legitimate cases under the rug or playing favorites.
As the Globe argued in an amicus brief, there are additional benefits of transparency that outweigh the hypothetical harms. The #MeToo era has provided countless examples of complaints inspiring witnesses to come forward to reinforce a complaint with relevant evidence or to make their own. The ability of the public and press to track complaints also makes it easier to spot patterns that can expose bad actors or organizational cultures; the Globe used the data, for instance, to show that the MBTA was the subject of more discrimination complaints than any other entity in the state.
The ruling didn’t rest on those arguments. Instead, Judge Mary Thomas Sullivan, who wrote the Appeals Court decision ordering the agency to comply with public records requests, found that the agency had failed to follow its own rules and had left the door open for the agency to resume blocking access if it does a better job dotting its i’s. “If the MCAD wishes to consider recalibrating its policy regarding public disclosure, it must follow the amendment process,” she wrote.
We urge the commission not to revise its policy. There’s an inherent public interest in making sure proceedings that can result in fines and public ignominy operate in the open. And, in the case of discrimination complaints, it has now become dramatically clear that public attention helps break down the walls of silence that have protected discrimination for too long.
Online: https://bit.ly/2LpSflB
____
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Learn New Hampshire voting rules
The Nashua Telegraph
Dec. 1
Temperatures may be dropping outside, but election season is heating up. New Hampshire, which hosts the first primary election in the United States, is a hotbed of activity as candidates make their rounds in anticipation of vying for their party’s nomination.
The good news is that even though our state’s Feb. 11 primary is fast approaching, there’s still time to register to vote.
New Hampshire’s mail registration deadline is six to 13 days prior to the election, depending on where you live. But residents always are eligible to register in person on Election Day. The earliest deadline for a mail-in registration is Jan. 29. The earliest deadline to register for the general presidential election is Oct. 21.
Online registration is not available in New Hampshire.
We encourage anyone who is 18 years of age or older to first exercise his or her right to register to vote. Then we encourage readers to educate themselves about the candidates and the issues and go into the 2020 primary election with a clear vision of for whom they want to cast a ballot.
This is a critical election in our nation’s future, and New Hampshire helps guide the course of subsequent primaries. The 2016 primary set a record voter turnout for the state at 550,000 ballots, representing 62% of registered voters. The previous record was set in 2008 with 530,000 voters.
Given what’s at stake, perhaps that record will be shattered and we’ll see numbers closer to the 2016 general election, in which New Hampshire had more than 75% voter turnout.
When the votes are tallied, opinions count for nothing. One’s real voice only is heard via the ballot box. Don’t permit yourself to be silenced.
Online: https://bit.ly/34ZrKej
___
RHODE ISLAND
Growing danger for Rhode Island health care
Providence Journal
Dec. 4
The shocking news Wednesday of massive financial losses at Lifespan - Rhode Island’s largest private employer - ought to jolt the state’s officials awake.
Rhode Island should have the strongest possible health-care system in place. If it fails to create one, it runs the risk of seeing the system picked apart, with lucrative operations shipped off to Massachusetts, fatally weakening Rhode Island’s ability to sustain high-quality health care.
Unfortunately, efforts to merge the major hospital systems in the state, Lifespan and Care New England, faltered during the summer, when CNE required that the merged entity put its CEO, James Fanale, in charge.
That preposterous demand was a non-starter. It would have constituted the tail wagging the dog, since Lifespan is the much larger entity. More importantly, it would have prevented a new board from searching widely for the best candidate possible.
Ironically, the Lifespan losses announced yesterday were caused in part by the inter-connectivity of Rhode Island’s hospitals. CNE’s closure of Memorial Hospital, in Pawtucket, which was a big financial drain on the chain, simply drove many poor patients to the Miriam Hospital, in Providence, and other facilities, shifting huge costs, including very pricey emergency-room care, to Lifespan.
Thus, CNE’s report that it finally turned a profit in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, while encouraging, is somewhat deceptive. Meanwhile, CNE appears to face mounting costs for capital improvements.
Two leading doctors at Lifespan, David Wazer and Ziya Gokaslan, warned in a Commentary piece just last Sunday (“Public needs answers about merger collapse”) that this state of affairs threatens care in Rhode Island.
“Gov. Gina Raimondo’s strong desire (and valiant efforts) to facilitate the formation of a unified academic medical center in Rhode Island with Brown University, Lifespan and Care New England becomes increasingly urgent as time passes … (A merger) remains the best, and only viable, solution for Rhode Island,” they wrote.
“As physician leaders at Lifespan, we are anxious to have the parties get back to that work and, in doing so, put all the issues on the table so the people of Rhode Island can see for themselves what is going on. This is simply too important for citizens to be kept in the dark,” the doctors wrote.
Ms. Raimondo, Brown and Lifespan have all agreed to waive a non-disclosure agreement and share information about a potential merger with the public. Only CNE is blocking disclosure.
The state’s health-care system is too important for these details to be kept hidden. We call on CNE board Chair Charles Reppucci, of Hinckley, Allen & Snyder; Vice Chair Gary Furtado, of Navigant Credit Union; and the rest of the board to do the right thing and share information with the public.
We also urge R.I. Attorney General Peter Neronha, who oversees the conduct of charitable institutions, to take a look to make sure the long-term fiduciary interests of CNE are being served, rather than short-term or selfish interests. It is hard for the public to make this determination, since CNE insists on keeping Rhode Islanders in the dark.
Governor Raimondo and legislative leaders should also do what they can to protect our health-care system. Inaction in response to a series of loud alarm bells could badly hurt the people of Rhode Island.
Online: https://bit.ly/2DPD7tA
___
VERMONT
Shameful decision on SNAP benefits
The Rutland Herald
Dec. 4
For weeks now, lawmakers, advocates, organizations and individuals from around Vermont joined the chorus of more than 140,000 public comments submitted on a rule that would force many Americans to lose their federal food stamps.
Those pleas fell on arrogantly deaf ears.
In a staggering display of neglect and irresponsibility, the Trump administration on Wednesday announced the rule change would, in fact, go into effect. The implication would impact nearly 700,000 people nationwide, and tens of thousands of Vermonters who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, funding.
The rule, which was proposed by the Department of Agriculture in February, would make states enforce work requirements for able-bodied adults without children, which governors have routinely been allowed to waive, especially for areas in economic distress. The economy has improved under the Trump administration, the department argued, and assistance to unemployed, able-bodied adults was no longer necessary in a strong job market.
In a study released last month, the Urban Institute estimated that taken together, the three measures in the rule would affect roughly 2.2 million households and 3.7 million individual beneficiaries.
But the truth is: The final rule simply takes food away from those who need it most.
The rule makes it more difficult for states to waive the time limit for the second set of work requirements. States have typically waived the three-month time limit for one or two years in areas that have a lack of sufficient jobs or high unemployment rates. Every state except Delaware has used the waiver in the past 23 years. After the 2008 recession, the time limit was suspended in areas representing nearly 90% of the population.
Also, as our own Sen. Patrick Leahy pointed out, it will make the program less responsive in times of sharp economic decline such as a recession.
“We must be prepared to act swiftly in times of dire need. This rule prevents that,” he noted by Tweet.
Leahy and Rep. Peter Welch, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, made a last-minute plea to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue in recent days, explaining - once again - how critical SNAP funding is for Vermont - and the nation.
The delegation noted, right now, states can allow low-income families who have already qualified for federal-assistance programs to be automatically enrolled in other programs. This option has a proven track record of reducing the paperwork burden for families and states while extending support to those in need. The rule change eliminates that automatic enrollment option to all states for nutrition assistance, in a move that targets working families, seniors and people with disabilities.
SNAP is a successful program that lifted 8.4 million people across the country out of poverty in 2015 alone. Vermont’s automatic enrollment of SNAP recipients is an important piece of the program’s success. It allows families to build the assets they need to lift themselves out of poverty without fearing that they will lose their benefits.
Perdue disagreed: “Government can be a powerful force for good, but government dependency has never been the American dream. We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand.”
Anti-poverty groups - like the five community action agencies around Vermont, among others - have stated the administration’s focus on the unemployment rate is misleading.
In fact, that argument was reiterated again on Wednesday.
“The overall unemployment rate is really a measure of the whole labor market and not people without a high school diploma who are incredibly poor and may lack transportation,” said Stacey Dean, vice president of food assistance policy at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “We’re talking about a different group who just face a very different labor market.”
This administration is not having it. They are all but ignoring the many voices begging it not to take action.
The New York Times on Wednesday quoted Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic Senate leader, as saying, “The Trump administration is driving the vulnerable into hunger just as the Christmas season approaches. It is heartless. It is cruel. It exposes a deep and shameful cruelness and hypocrisy in this administration.”
According to the Associated Press, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said, “Instead of combating food insecurity for millions, connecting workers to good-paying jobs or addressing income inequality, the administration is inflicting their draconian rule on millions of Americans across the nation who face the highest barriers to employment and economic stability.”
It is heartless and heart-breaking at the same time that the resounding voices of so many Americans would be ignored. Online: https://bit.ly/2P0h8GR
Please read our comment policy before commenting.