Danielle Levy

Most job applications have a box to check whether one has ever been convicted of a crime. When checked that more often than not automatically means the application will go to the bottom of the pile or be rejected. People who have served time or been convicted of a felony have the right to rebuild their lives, and the necessity for that is a job. An L.A. Times editorial puts it this way,” The most telling predictor of whether an ex-offender will reenter the community as a law-abiding and productive member, or whether instead he or she will return to jail or prison, is employment.” Being rejected just on the basis of checking this box is equivalent to a double punishment. We owe it to those individuals, to the welfare of the community in which they live, as well as to the society as a whole, to make it easier for those who have been convicted and served their time to be able to better find a job. There is a movement throughout the country to “ban the box”. In California, that effort takes the shape of AB 218. Let’s hope it passes and becomes an example other states can follow.

The number of drugs providing highs and available legally is now larger than the number of illicit drugs under international control. Over 300 so called designer drugs are now easily bought, often online, and used by an increasing number of young people. In the U.S. 11% of 17- and 18-year old say they have tried them. They are more dangerous than traditional drugs such as cocaine and can easily be manufactured. There are infinite ways to alter their chemical structure, something that makes it harder for international agencies to control them, admits the UN Office on Drugs and Crime which issued the report. The rapid spread of these psychoactive substances, a growing problem in 70 of the 80 countries surveyed, poses unforeseen public health challenges. None has been tested for safety, side effects or consequences of prolonged usage. Drug usage is in itself so distressing, and when combined with drugs that are legally sold openly, it is even more so. The report recommends that the UN, other agencies and countries act to halt the production , sale and use of these drugs, all obvious remedies. Yet, as idealistic as it sounds, using our knowledge and resources to prevent usage may in the end be more practical.

The House voted on a Bill to restrict abortion to 20 weeks, in effect outlawing those late terms procedures which anti abortion activists call partial births. It is one of the most restrictive bills put forth yet. Given it would not pass a Democratic controlled senate nor be signed by the President, the supporters knew it would not become law. Regardless it was put on the floor to appease the part of the Republican base who has been quite vocal about abortion since the trial of doctor Kermit Gosnell. Indeed anyone learning about the details of that medical clinic has to cringe, and condemn the practices. It is easy to understand how it could fuel the flames of anti-abortion supporters and even understand how easy it is to forget that the practice of one doctor cannot be used to indict other clinics. What’s worth underlining about this bill is a point that has been made many times before, but one that is worth repeating, that in the main those who support both it and the changes it spells out are Christians, and their position is informed by their Christian beliefs. While they are as free to practice their religion in whatever way they see fit, when those beliefs underlie legislation that is to apply to Christians as well as to non-Christians, then it does look like the separation between church and state has been weakened. If I am correct about the religious underpinning of this stance, then it is wise to expect it won’t stop with this vote.