Category Archives: National

The gun collection no one is talking about

In my contributions to the non-metro Atlanta news site, AllOnGeorgia, I have the unique opportunity to write about Second Amendment issues on a daily basis. Some days this is a good thing and other days, extremely disappointing to read what is happening around the country, mostly because of one disturbing trend that is publicized, but going almost completely unnoticed by Second Amendment supporters.

Gun buy back programs. These events, where local governments and/or police departments purchase firearms from citizens is surging right now and no one is batting an eye. Legal and illegal handguns and rifles are being collected with hardly any mention of where the taxpayer money is coming from, where the weapons are going, or what organization is pushing the initiative to remove so many weapons from the streets.

Let’s take a look at a few of the more recent buy back events:

Interestingly enough, Mississippi doesn’t allow buy backs because of a law that stipulates taking money in exchange for firearms violates the firearm dealer/auctioneer provision. Does that mean that all the other states just bypass similar laws because it’s the police/government doing it?

As you can see, this isn’t concentrated in one particular area of one state or region of the country. It’s not limited to blue states. It’s happening everywhere. Of course, this is all voluntary. But why? If, for the first time in decades, more people support gun rights over control, why is this happening?

Study after study shows one of three (or all three) things:

  1. Buy backs don’t reduce crime.
  2. They don’t reduce the number of guns in a community by even a marginal number.
  3. The people likely to commit crimes aren’t hopping in line for a gift card or a comic book in exchange for their firearm.

Aside from wanting to know what kind of fool would turn in an expensive handgun, rifle or higher caliber weapon for a mere $50 or $100, why would anyone want to turn in your weapon even if they were being compensated for the value of the gun?  Why not just sell it outright? Why turn it into the police or the very government that stands to threaten Second Amendment rights at any given time? Why…when it isn’t known where the weapons end up.

We all balk at initiatives in Congress for things like proposed legislation that would offer tax credits if you get rid of your firearms. Tell me why that sentiment isn’t shared in this instance.

confused

Presidential Primary: A Single-Issue Race?

Ben Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Over the last 14 years, we’ve seen how much liberty Americans are willing to give up for the purposes of safety. Between the TSA and the NSA, very little goes unseen or untouched.

Recently, many of our Republican presidential candidates and expected-to-be presidential candidates have taken the media bait (to our advantage) to answer questions on the increasingly controversial issues like the PATRIOT Act renewal and the NSA program.

With the PATRIOT Act renewal at the forefront and on the heels of the Rand filibuster, here’s what we’ve seen so far:

  • Scott Walker said if he were in the Senate, he would not have supported Rand Paul’s protest against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and the NSA’s domestic surveillance programs.
  • Jeb Bush said, with regard to Rand’s filibuster, “I think he’s wrong in saying that this is unconstitutional or saying that people’s freedoms have been violated by the Patriot Act.”
  • Marco Rubio has publicly pushed for the extension of the program while telling folks the government isn’t listening unless you’re a terrorist (how do they know if you are or not?) and there “is not a single documented case of abuse of this program.”
  • Mike Huckabee recently slammed Obama, saying, “Obama’s warrantless, NSA spying program is more than just illegal, it’s an unconstitutional, criminal assault on our freedoms as Americans.  As president, I will repeal this program and protect the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans.”
  • Ted Cruz, while supportive of the PATRIOT Act, opposes the NSA. He thinks we should “walk and chew gum at the same time.”
  • Chris Christie semi-supports the program but says, “you can’t enjoy your civil liberties if you’re in a coffin.” Umm…what?
  • Ben Carson thinks there’s a way to accomplish the ends of the NSA without the NSA.

So can Constitutional conservatives be distinguished by just one question?

I say maybe. If, after years of criticism and zero deterred terrorists attacks because of the NSA program, a Republican is still willing to circumvent the Constitution under the guise of “security,” that tells me a lot about their respect for the Constitution in other capacities. For me, I understand the importance of political compromise, but the U.S. Constitution is one place that I’m not looking for someone to offer ‘exceptions.’ Ever.

I’m certainly not saying that privacy and the NSA are the only threats to our country. While I personally believe civil liberties continue to be second only to the national debt and the stability of our economy, I recognize that not everyone prioritizes privacy the same way I do. My point, however, is not only is it one of the top issues we are facing, but rather a gauge of future behavior.

For what it’s worth, Hillary Clinton, who seems to support the program, believes it should be more transparent. I think that speaks volumes about where we should be on the program. The good news for Republicans is there is more than one contender who opposes the NSA.

Presidential Field Too Green?

Remember in 2008, when Barack Obama starting making headway and everyone shouted from the rooftops that he was too young, too inexperienced, too green? I’m not sure if that was the argument because people actually believed it or if they had grown too concerned with appearing ‘racist’ in an election cycle that was a constant racial attack from the Left. Either way, it left me cringing when some of our GOP counterparts rose through the ranks over the last few years and we went far beyond overlooking it.

In fact, I am currently wondering why we are not relieving that right now. Consider the announced GOP field as of today:

  • Marco Rubio
  • Ted Cruz
  • Rand Paul

The were all elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010, meaning, they are just wrapping up their first term. Neither Paul nor Cruz had served in public office before, something I personally believe should happen before being elected as a U.S. Senator (or President) and my belief is that we simply ‘lucked out’ with them. But I digress.

If you consider their political resumes, Barack Obama’s is technically more diverse.

Presidential Seal

Carly Fiorna and Dr. Ben Carson also have legitimate supporters and encouragement to run. Neither of them have served a day in public office before. There are people that love that about them.

Then, there are gubernatorial candidates who have only served a little over 4 years in office. And serving as a Governor presents different experiences. Walker, Jeb Bush, Christie, Jindal and all the others bring very different backgrounds to the table.

So how much experience is enough experience? The arguments of executive branch picks versus otherwise are abundant. The number of years they have served…too much versus not enough. The reasons are endless.

In our own state, we saw last fall that ‘absolutely none’ was a level of experience many Republicans wanted to see in their elected officials with the election of Senator David Perdue and Congressmen Jody Hice (GA-10) and Rick Allen (GA-12). Whether that works for us still remains to be seen, but we won’t know unless we test it.

Regardless of what you believe about these Presidential candidates (or soon-to-be candidates) ability to win, their supporters, their fundraising tactics, and their match-up against Hillary, you still have to admit it: They’re all green in some capacity. None of them have ever served as President of the United States before.

Our country continues to evolve. The challenges we face will continue to evolve as well, and with that, so will the electorate as we decide who can best arrange the deck chairs on this already sinking ship.

My question is this: Is there a trend toward newbies or are we just hypocrites? Is it now politically expedient to support these greenies or were we wrong before? I’m okay with either, but we should probably be prepared to message that when things heat up.

I Flip-Flopped on the Death Penalty

I used to be a zealous advocate for the death penalty. An eye for an eye! Justice must be served! But in recent years I’ve teetered on the fence of unsurity. After covering some death penalty cases for various news sources, I hereby rescind my advocacy for said punishment.

My opposition doesn’t come from the idea that you can’t be ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-death penalty.’ (You can do whatever you want and a lot of people are both.) Nor is it about the ‘humanity’ of it. And I certainly don’t care what ‘other countries’ or the UN have to say about it. It really isn’t even about the mental health component, because, while I find the idea of the State determining what mental capacity is acceptable for various punishments, fixing that wouldn’t really fix the overarching problem:cHOP

The fact that we cannot serve justice in a broken legal system and that the lies they tell you about saving money when someone is put to death are false.

It doesn’t take much more than a traffic ticket to reveal the real flaws of our legal system. Even for those crimes not on the list of ‘punishable by death’ show us often a sentence that has been overturned, or a case thrown out because of ‘new evidence,’ or an oversight during an investigation. Sure, it’s the big cases that hit the news circuits where a man is freed from prison after serving some 36 years…wrongfully. Is 29 years “better” than 36? We know it happens more than we would like to admit. We feel bad for the victim of a wrongful conviction but then carry on and go back to soccer practice and Facebook. It’s almost as if society is afraid to acknowledge its flaws. ::gasp::

Statistics show the following:

  • 144 people on death row have been exonerated since 1973 when the death penalty was reinstated. (Here is the list)
  • We know of at least 10 cases where someone was wrongfully executed.
  • It costs $90,000 more PER YEAR to house a death row prisoner, compared to ‘general confinement.’
  • Forbes points out that it can be 10x more expensive to kill an inmate than to keep them alive and attorneys on both sides spend roughly 44x more time on death penalty appeal cases than life sentence appeal cases.
  • Because of the lengthy appeals process that can take decades to settle, states can spend upward of $184 million PER YEAR in death penalty appeals cases.
  • The Idaho legislative Capital Punishment study committee put together a lovely report on the actual costs.

A Georgia man was recently executed because he shot a Laurens County Sheriff’s deputy 9 times and it was recorded on a dash cam. The defendant didn’t deny doing so either. This is certainly a ‘slam dunk,’ if you will, but at what cost? At the cost of potentially taking the life of a man or woman who was not guilty.  And a VERY high cost when we aren’t always ‘sure.’ 144 people on death row wrongfully in 42 years doesn’t seem like that high of a number. Unfortunately 1 is far too many.

So I suppose I am unsure if I am actually against the death penalty, but under our flawed legal system, I simply cannot support it.

The Value in Legislating a Life

A lot of folks have probably seen it by now…the articles detailing the tragic fate of a newlywed 29-year-old who’s currently battling stage 4 of an aggressive brain cancer and has limited time left to live. She posted a video explaining why, on November 1 of this year, she will end her own life using medicine prescribed by a doctor, effectively giving her a peaceful and painless exit of this life. Her other option is to endure what could be months of tragic pain and suffering  and in her words, ‘dignity is less terrifying’.

Who could blame her? Not a single soul will admit that they ever want to see a loved one suffer and end-of-life care is generally hardest on surrounding family members and caregivers. She and her family moved to Oregon at the beginning of the year because Oregon is the only state currently with a ‘Death with Dignity Act’, allowing assisted suicide.

I’m not sure if it’s the graceful photos of her on her wedding day in a beautiful dress with her new husband, the glimpses of what her happy life should look like, or if it’s the tone of her message but the story seems to be resonating with folks across political spectrums and into all walks of life.

Studies, polls, and conversation alike will show that many Americans are still wary of assisted suicide, but more willing than you would think. After all, it’s only legal in FOUR state in the United States and the circumstantial laws are so strict that in states like Oregon, only 750 people have ‘used’ the method (since 1997) as a means of ending their own life. As a society, we grieve for those who fall victim to suicide but we also condemn it. (By this, I mean we condemn the act to those before suffering. We are brought up to reach out to those in pain, but that is because it is viewed as wrong.) The taking of one’s own life in most faithful circles is sin, and we’ve seen a tremendous resistance to removing conventional, faith-based societal norms in exchange for more tolerance and acceptance in culture today.

So why are people not completely appalled by this idea this time around?  Some say it’s based on how it’s described. Are they so numb to the concept as a whole that they don’t see it for what it is? Are people accepting of it ‘just this once’? Or has the sensitivity, the pain in the tone of the story and the humanity of it all brought about a different perspective? And where does humanity take us in legislating morality, because this is a moral debate.

I think we already know…

Why the Christian Right is Wrong on Religious Liberty

Religious Liberty

Before anyone strokes out, let’s preface with this: While I struggle with how to classify religious liberty – Is it a social issue? Is it a fundamental issue? A Constitutional one? Simply something we will forever fight as the culture of society changes? – I do support religious liberty.

For the sake of ease of understanding and frame of reference, let’s consider a same-sex couple seeking to have a wedding/civil union/grand party – whatever the state allows – and they are seeking vendors for various services. They live in a moderately-sized city where there are multiple options for attire, cakes, DJ’s and venues.

We have to first consider a premise that most conservatives, but not all Republicans, would agree with: Under no circumstance should any business be forced to do anything. Whether the mandate be for hours of operation, location, employee diversity or minimum wage, the government has no place. Who you serve, how you serve, when you serve is a slippery slope.

But that slope slides both ways (pun not intended). Religious liberty is a teetering topic just perched upon the peak of the mountain waiting for anyone to slip on a banana peel forcing an avalanche down either side. When a business starts refusing business to a certain type of people, folks immediately and unfortunately jump back to the pre-Civil Rights Movement days where we saw hatred oozing from segregated areas. On the other side, we have folks operating under a system of government that neither respects private enterprise or religion. At that point, what good are we?

But it isn’t the same. While religious freedom is our first and fundamental God-given right so sacred that it is enumerated in the Constitution, religious liberty goes a tad further. Religious liberty expands to freedom of belief through practice, not just observance. It goes beyond Christianity, and much to the chagrin of the Left, it also protects the atheists and the agnostic.

So back to our same-sex couple looking for vendors. The argument that a person shouldn’t want someone who doesn’t support what they’re doing to perform a service for them’ is one of the lousier arguments out there for any political argument. Please stop using it. No, of course no one wants to consider sabotage or hap-hazard work because of, in their case, their sexual orientation and that’s likely not going to be the what happens with a business owner. I don’t see a service provider jeopardizing their reputation of quality. Perhaps principle, but not quality of a product. So what is the real protection for those who feel religious liberty protections would only spread hatred and discrimination?

The market. The free market generally cleanses communities of these businesses as citizens see fit. Consider Melissa Klein, the New York baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple and was subsequently forced to shut down her business over the controversy. The correct way for a business to be put out of business is through reduced patronage, not because the government has regulated it into oblivion and the pending legal costs from a civil suit tank the entire operation. We should pause when the federal standard is more protective of limiting government than that of Georgia (or any state). In Georgia, you can sue someone for not performing a service for you.

And in fixing it, one size doesn’t fit all. Look at the demographics just in our state. In Atlanta, we tend to be a little more tolerant. A business unwilling to serve a gay couple, for instance, would likely face substantial blow-back versus that in rural Georgia where citizens would probably pay for a one-way ticket out-of-town for a couple to be patrons elsewhere. Each community is different and blanket laws won’t solve what some would consider ‘morality issues’. And let’s be realistic: cultures vary. We support that with our “Not in our town!” mentality about everything. Why is this any different? Trying to legislate humans into being what some folks consider ‘good people’ is a recipe for failure. If a business is turning away revenue – there must be a substantial cause for that and who are we to decide if that cause is worthy or not?

While the Hobby Lobby case seems to be dominating the news market, there are many more cases like this popping up all around our state and nation. Our classrooms, our small business owners – they’re all wading through this muddied mess of law versus morality and while we’ve tried to fix it, we’re only making it worse.

So far, here’s where I think we’ve messed up:
Going back to our double-sided ski slope, we have to recognize that this is yet another issue where we are on the chopping block in the media and we likely won’t win. Having said that, we should still be sensitive to the tone and wording. ‘Religious freedom’ means something different to a lot of folks as opposed to ‘religious liberty’. Many see ‘freedom’ as ‘ability’ and ‘liberty’ as ‘protection’. We should acknowledge the distinction.

The conversation may not have started the properly. So much of legislation is first about teaching and educating. When we teach and educate, the conversation travels both ways and we ended up with better legislation. We’ve charged an issue literally clinging to our guns and our religion and it has fogged the entire debate. Hobby Lobby brought out some zealots and the media clung to them. We have to distance ourselves from Hobby Lobby and those zealots. Our argument needs to be crafted two-fold: First, that this isn’t just about Christians, it’s about all religions. We are here to protect the religious liberty of all. And second, this is about the role of government.

We also handed the note to the wrong carrier pigeon. This is where the Christian Right comes into play and can make a difference. My long-time establishment friends will be proud to hear me say this, but it seems like a more moderate person has to carry a bill and be the talking head. I commend those across various states who have put themselves in the line of fire because others are unwilling. It’s noble, but it may not be effective. It’s why Congressman Broun can’t carry the torch. Because this is about religion, but not one specific religion.

So to sum up:

  • Religious liberty at its core is about limited government.
  • The current messengers for religious liberty may not be the right ones at this time.
  • The term ‘religious freedom’ could be damaging to the cause because again, people don’t understand.
  • We’re living in an era where the ‘general public’ might not understand what the end goal is so the first step is conversation, not legislation. You can’t drop a knowledge bomb on someone without first offering a firm definition of what is to be done.

As for the couple looking for vendors, if they want to limit the role of the state for issues like, oh say, marriage, they must understand that government should also be limited elsewhere.

Everything You Think About Conservative Millennials Is Wrong

 

millenial cat

Millennial:
noun

  1. a person reaching young adulthood around the year 2000; a Generation Yer.
    “the industry brims with theories on what makes millennials tick”
Unless you live in the stone age, you probably hear this term daily, but the majority of people associate it with the lazy working class of twenty-somethings who likely have no direction in life and whom also lack respect for anyone who would identify as a baby boomer. Don’t lie. You know that’s how you think of them us. Those kids you don’t want on your lawn.
But they we are an integral part of the political game. As cliché as it sounds, they we are the future and at some point, the baby boomers will have to stop shunning them us. We see the world differently, but somewhere in the mix of labeling and the desire to be right because you’re older, you stopped listening and wrote us off as “not conservative enough”.

Allow me to offer a few examples.

Immigration
Last week, I attended a Peach Pundit Immigration forum where the diverse panel actually included ‘one of us’. Chairman of the Georgia College Republicans, Will Kremer, made a point that resonated with me immensely. “When you talk about immigration reform, and you refer to these people as ‘invaders’, it turns us off. We grew up with these people, we went to school with them.”
It’s true. Right, wrong or indifferent, current protocol puts these children, sometimes anchor babies, in school with us millennials and so we don’t see them or their families as the delinquents society is painting them to be. We see them as humans first. It doesn’t mean we don’t want tighter immigration policy, that we don’t want to secure the border or enforce the laws on the books. Maybe our view could open your mind a little bit when it comes to discussion because we see it differently.

Next, consider gay marriage. I challenge you to find one millennial -liberal, conservative, libertarian or independent who lists gay marriage as their number one issue. I would put money on the fact that it isn’t even in the top 5. You think it’s the demise of our country, we care about our national debt, the student loan crisis and whether or not we will have a job post-college/grad school. We may have our personal views on it, but it’s not what’s driving us to the polls.millennials_and_cause_infographic
Also, we don’t see the over-criminalization of drugs as an abuse of power because we are all a bunch of pot heads. We see it for what it is: a pathway of destroying lives of youthful and first time offenders who will likely never “re-offend.” This has become a taboo talking point. Stop shutting us down as druggie good-for-nothings because we don’t think a marijuana offense should ruin a career path. We just see it differently.
Finally, we don’t really like war. Not because we don’t want the strongest military in the world or we’re any less patriotic, but because as a nation, we choose poorly and you’re going to die and we will have to pay for it. And much to your denial, we are pro-life.

I’m not saying that millennials are right about everything. Most of us know we still have a lot to learn. But our hearts and minds are still open so we see things differently. We grew up differently. We have a different level of compassion and we have different reasons for supporting candidates. We tend to pick issues over party affiliation, but only because you’re alienating us. We aren’t going anywhere, I promise, so we at least deserve a seat at the table.

3 Deaf Mice: Obama, the Court of Appeals & Local Law Enforcement

yes we scan

In the wake of the Court of Appeals decision which ruled that surveillance on wireless service such as a cell phones and other mobile devices required a warrant, specifically in cases where law enforcement agencies were tracking cell tower pings, there now seems to be even more to the story.

The Obama administration is advising local law enforcement agencies to keep everything on the hush hush regarding their surveillance equipment. Specifically, the administration has asked that details surrounding the functionality of the equipment remain “unknown” to the public. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the new technology is fairly unknown and with that unknown comes the uncertainty of whether or not it violates some Constitutional rights. (You know, that pesky 4th amendment.)

“These extreme secrecy efforts are in relation to very controversial, local government surveillance practices using highly invasive technology,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement to the Associated Press. “If public participation means anything, people should have the facts about what the government is doing to them.” The ACLU is currently fighting for the release of such documents and has spearheaded efforts to put pressure on Congress to rein in unconstitutional surveillance practices.

What many may find even more disturbing is the idea that the producers of such surveillance equipment designed this technology with secrecy clauses in regards to the FEC and have required local agencies to operate the equipment in cooperation with the FBI.

Is your tin foil hat buzzing just a little at this point?!

The FBI states that information cannot be shared because if it were, ‘they’ would no longer be able to “protect” us from terrorism. Yes. They really said that. Some states, such as Florida, have tried to trump the federal silencing through loose open-records laws, however, the U.S. Marshal’s Service confiscated the obtained documents.

So, to sum up…not only do we not know why or where such devices are being used, we don’t even know how the equipment that has been designed secretly and specifically to infringe upon our rights operates. We don’t know how much this equipment costs, we don’t know who all has them nor do we know with whom they are sharing information. And now we have an administration instructing local law enforcement agencies to “keep it that way”.

Are you worried yet?

Judges, Doctors Trumping Legal Contracts?

I will admit that sometimes I forget to keep up with news. Many days I rely solely on Facebook and Twitter for my ‘headlines’ and then go find out what’s going on. I don’t recommend this plan for information as you will generally miss out on many “non-trending” newsworthy items. So if, like me, you hadn’t been closely following the Jahi McMath case, you likely haven’t mulled over the legal ramifications of what is actually happening in the case.

A quick overview of the Jahi McMath illustrates a truly devastating case of a 13-year old girl put under for basic removal of adenoids and tonsils. After surgery, she began bleeding and went into cardiac arrest. She was later declared “brain-dead” by two physicians and one court-ordered physician (where this court-ordered physician came in, I’m still researching). Her heart and lungs continue to operate but she lacks brain activity. These functions are how cessation of life is determined and are also the cause of the conundrum in this case.

Little Jahi has been living (according to her family) in a ‘dead’ (according to medicine) state for 26 days (as of publishing). During a time when her family is not only grieving the damage to their daughter, they are amidst a legal battle which includes a restraining order [which is actually set to expire today at 5pm] against the Children’s hospital at which Jahi was originally admitted. She has since been transferred to an undisclosed location and is receiving intravenous nutrients as you read this.

I remember the Terry Schiavo case, though I was young for much of it, and I remember the legal battle and the slaughtering of both involved parties in the news for years and years. The problem then and the problem now is a moral one, not a legal one…and we ALL know you cannot legislate morality. Life care, medical decisions, these have personal consequences. And when no formal arrangements are made for their care, these things happen. Of course loved ones are going to hold on for as long as they possibly can. Parents have the right to do this for their minor children. Husbands and wives have the right to make these decisions, too. Any one designated as the ‘medical power of attorney’ has the right to do this. It is essentially a legal contract.

At the present time, the McMath family is not costing the California any money, either. Because Jahi was declared ‘dead’, insurance will not cover medical costs, however, pro-life and Catholic organizations as well as the Terry Schiavo Foundation have all funneled money to help cover costs.

My final concern doesn’t really warrant too long of an explanation but it is one of the most important questions we must ask: If the practiced religion of the McMath’s prohibit the removal of life support measures, should a Judge have the discretion and power to override that?

And what about the right to privacy?

It makes sense that this is one of the reasons the Affordable Care Act is so frightening. Any type of government intervention –on any level, for any reason– is a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line? Court ordered out-patient counseling? Judicial supervision and mandates for in-patient rehabilitation? Sterilization? Refusal of care against familial wishes that ultimately determine life or death?

I don’t know about you but I struggle with the desire for a legal responsibility and legal contract to be upheld and the complete insensitivity on behalf of the courts to demand people ‘pull the plug’. You cannot ask yourself what you would do in a similar situation because every case has different circumstances, emotions and religious beliefs that come into play. The question here is simple, but not simply defined: How much State is too much State?

Baby Steps for Accountability: Asbestos Fund Fraud

Sent to me via a friend, and not something I usually write about, but interesting and worth knowing about nonetheless. Plus, I like to throw people off with not-so-common topics every now and again.

Congressmen Blake Farenthold (R-TX) and Jim Matheson (D-UT) are sponsoring bi-partisan legislation, the FACT Act (Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency).
Harold Kim wrote an article for Free Enterprise detailing the specifics of nonexistent people receiving funds from Asbestos trusts. Thousands and thousands of dollars intended for real victims being dispersed to faulty trusts and placed in undeserving hands. Imagine that.

Kim notes,

the trusts’ opaque operations open the door to abuse. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal revealed that an employee of a California law firm filed a claim with a trust in the name of someone who didn’t even exist.  Five weeks later, he received a $26,000 check from the trust. The same firm also filed trust claims on behalf of clients who were nurses. They allegedly were exposed to asbestos while chipping paint from boilers – not exactly a typical duty for nurses.

The Wall Street Journal also found that,

In its analysis, the Journal found 2,689 [Johns Manville bankruptcy trust] applicants through 2005 who claimed to be working in various labor-intensive occupations while under the age of 12. Among them were 753 people who claimed their exposure to asbestos began while working in construction before turning 12; 356 people who said they were metal workers; and 184 chemical workers.”

The FACT Act requires more transparency by requiring quarterly reports to be filed for examination by courts and trusts. A small opportunity to demand more accountability, but certainly worthwhile. Baby steps when we can, right?