Strollerderby : civil rights

School Has Autistic Child Arrested

JeanneSager — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:08:00 GMT

Charges of battery against an eight-year-old with Asperger's syndrome have been dropped, and her parents are now pursuing legal action against the Idaho school district that called law enforcement.

What's wrong with this picture?

Evelyn Towry was told she couldn't wear her special jacket in class last week, prompting the little girl (whose diagnosis of Asperger's falls on the autism spectrum) to become resistent and act out in the classroom. But instead of telling the child she could just wear her jacket, school officials said they called the cops, alleging she assaulted school staff during the incident.

She's eight. And autistic.

Shouldn't school officials, of all people, understand that?

While Asperger's syndrome falls on the milder end of the autism spectrum, its symptoms are akin to what many people identify with autism - a need for structure, difficulty identifying and expressing feelings. It's also classified as a disability, allowing children who have been diagnosed to qualify for special services from their local school district, including special consideration for their special needs.

So why should a jacket on a child with Asperger's syndrome become an issue? Even if this child were to have become violent, the details of the case would indicate that school officials set this child - who they knew had a difficulty expressing feelings - off. They caused the problem. That would seem a direct violation of civil rights section 504, which protects kids in schools from discrimination for their developmental disabilities.

Should autistic child bear some responsibility for their actions? By calling the cops and pressing battery charges, that's what the school district was suggesting - that Evelyn Towry was responsible for battery. But who's to blame? Should a school district be held liable for the action that caused the equal and opposite reaction?

Image: salem news

Vatican to Women: The Pill Pollutes Environment, His Testes

FDA Asked to Approve Gardasil for Boys

AAP: Delayed Vaccines Too Risky for Kids

They Say: Meningitis Vaccine Actually Works

New Study Says Autism is Environmental

Parent Training An Alternative to Meds for ADHD

Prop. 8 Protests Spawn Hope and Great Photos

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:22:00 GMT

Yesterday, thousands gathered in 300 cities across the United States to protest the passage of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California. The protests were a poignant and powerful reminder that no civil right is easily won.

Equality for gay families will be an uphill battle--all of the 30 states that have voted on gay marriage have banned it--but the impressive organization and high turnout of yesterday's peaceful protests demonstrate that the gay rights movement has the momentum to fight for as long as it takes.

Jezebel has posted a slideshow of photos of the protests submitted by readers across the country. I'm unable to post individual selections from the slideshow (aptly titled "Love Not Hate"), but, as you can tell from this one highlight on the right, it's worth browsing the whole thing, especially if you're feeling discouraged about the election's decidedly anti-gay rights outcome.

One of the photos shows a young woman carrying a sign that says, "Jesus Says Relax." I'd like to add to that my favorite Jon Stewart quote. Speaking of gay marriage a few years back, he said, "I really don't see what the big deal is--unless, of course, they're going to make it mandatory."

Photo: Jezebel

Two women found guilty of illegal midwifery

Brett Singer — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:00:00 GMT

This is a serious issue, but I have to say that the term "illegal midwifery" sounds like something out of a bad Shakespeare parody.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, here's the story:

"Tonya McGlade was found guilty of Attempting Midwifery Without a License. Linda McGlade was found guilty of Principal to Practice Midwifery Without a License.

"Prosecutors say the women helped Linda McGlade's other daughter-in-law deliver her baby boy. She died of internal bleeding two days after giving birth back in 2004."

In other words, they attempted to deliver a baby without having a license to do so. Sadly, the mother died; the baby survived. This site has a lot more detail if you're interested (fair warning: it's very sad).

What I'm wondering is, just how prevalent is this practice? If someone decides to give birth at home without a trained person present (midwife, doctor, nurse, whatever) and nothing goes wrong, would they be prosecuted as well? Judging by what I've seen on Babble, home births are far more common than I realized. If I had to guess, I would say that a large percentage of these births are against the law. And something else: isn't the problem that the patient died and received poor treatment, rather than the midwife's lack of license? I mean, you can get a midwife license online. (CORRECTION: according to a commenter, that web site only offers the coursework; to get licensed you have to complete your training under supervision.)

Image/source: mysuncoast.com

Read more:

11 months old, 62 pounds

Girl being kept alive by Viagra

They Say: no link between autism and measles vaccine

Red eye? Nope, eye cancer

McCain, Palin oppose teen pregnancy aid and sex education

New Mom Sues After No-Meds C-Section

Only 43% of British Moms Offered Home Birth! Outrage!

They Say: More Toddlers Get Immunized Than Ever

Is Home Birth a Civil Right?

Airline removes life vests

Storm Tracking? It Can Be Used in Pregnancy, Too

Is Home Birth a Civil Right?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:00:00 GMT

Most people agree that where and how to give birth is a personal choice. But what if your choice is one that many doctors feel is dangerous for you and your baby?

A resurgence in the home birthing movement has doctors and midwives grappling with this question, and Babble’s own Ada Calhoun has researched the heck out of the issue for Time.

Women who opt for home births argue that this method allows them more control over their birthing experience, making it unlikely that they will undergo interventions, such as C-sections or episiotomies, that they don’t feel are necessary. Midwives only assist at home births for low risk patients, and are trained not only to deal with emergencies themselves—often in the exact same way an obstetric nurse would—but they also know when it’s necessary to bring a patient to the hospital as quickly as possible.

But many doctors argue that the best medical care can only be accessed in the hospital—period. The American Medical Association is urging lawmakers to restrict the home birthing movement, in part by making it more difficult for direct-entry midwives (who don’t have nursing degrees) to get licensed.

Currently, only 1 percent of U.S. births occur in the home. So midwife Joan Bryson seems justified in defending home birth’s safety in these terms: “We [the U.S.] rank 42nd in the world in live births, and we spend more money than anyone else. You can’t blame it on home birth.”

My personal experience makes me naturally inclined to side with Bryson. Both my sister and I were born at home with a midwife, and my parents describe the experience in near ecstatic terms (honestly, their extreme enthusiasm when recounting my mother's 12-hour labor can be a bit disconcerting). Also, my older sister never exhibited the jealousy and sense of displacement that many older children feel after the birth of a sibling. I believe this was in part because she was present in the house while my mother was in labor, and was able to see my mother and me almost as soon as I was born. There was no sense that her mother had disappeared, and then returned carrying the reason for her disappearance.

It goes without saying that giving birth at home is not for everyone—but neither is giving birth at a hospital. Competent midwives should not be subject to prosecution for allowing women to opt out of a traditional hospital birthing experience.

Photo: Time

School T-Shirt Controversy: "N the 'N' Word"

Kelly Mills — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:38:00 GMT

Eight-year-old Jaiden Haber was sent to the principal's office for wearing a shirt that said, "N the 'N' Word" and below that, "It's time!" The principal of the Amityville school told Jaden to change the shirt. The executive director of the Nassau chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union says that violated Jaiden's First Amendment rights. The district superintendent says, "To send a little white girl wearing this shirt into a very diverse district that is almost 90 percent nonwhite was not the way to address this word. It's a lightning rod." Jaiden's mom says the school should have used this as a teaching moment, and that Jaiden innocently made history. But you know what really bothers me about this story?

What Jaiden says. "My mom picked it out. She thought it would look nice on me. I don't know why they made me take it off." See, her mom didn't explain the shirt to her, saying she wanted to "keep her innocent." So while I'm with the New York Civil Liberties Union on the fact that she should have the right to wear the shirt, I am really, really bugged by the fact that her mom sent her to school in a controversial shirt without telling her the significance of it. Frankly, I think it's totally unfair to her kid, and her comments make it sound as though she wanted to start something, in shades of lamb to the slaughter. What do you think? And how does this stack up against political onesies and the like?

Government Official Flaunts Offensive Bumper Sticker

Infant Oversharing and a Crappy 'Poo-stache'