Latest news with #KimberlyAtkinsStohr
Boston Globe
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
This pay dispute is turning into a public safety crisis
Advertisement Indeed, what started as a pay dispute is now a real threat to public safety. People accused of crimes are entitled to a lawyer under the US Constitution. Most can't afford one, so the state provides them. Massachusetts is one of a handful of states that often contracts that work out to a bar advocate — a private attorney hired by the state to represent indigent defendants. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But their pay is so low — $65 an hour, far lower than in neighboring states — that a large group of bar advocates have stopped taking new cases. If the state's rate were actually competitive, you might expect to see other lawyers hungry for work rushing to fill the void. Notably, they're not. Advertisement Now judges have no choice but to free some defendants. Earlier this month, a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court Legislative leaders have complained that the bar advocates didn't give them proper warning, and that they don't like being pressured by the work stoppage. Representative Aaron Michlewitz (D-Boston), chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, But legislative pique is not a good enough reason to let this dangerous situation drag on. And anyway, lawmakers knew or should have known that pay was a serious and legitimate issue for those court-appointed lawyers — and that the consequences for ignoring it could be grave. At a hearing last March before the House and Senate Ways and Means Committee, Anthony J. Benedetti, chief counsel for the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) — which administers the appointment of attorneys — made the case for modest increases in their hourly wage. Advertisement And bar advocates said as early as That should have been more than enough time to reach a deal. While the $35 per hour increase that bar advocates are said to be seeking may be too high, there should have been — should still be — some way to reach a compromise. After all, that's what lawyers do all the time. (Lawmakers have said meeting the demand would cost about State Senator Lydia Edwards (D-Boston), who cochairs the Judiciary Committee, told the editorial board that bar advocates should go back to work with a commitment from the Legislature to work on an increase on their wages. 'Call it a win. Be better organized now. Set out a realistic increase that this Legislature can meet now,' she said. But that would require bar advocates to give up leverage in the hope that lawmakers are acting in good faith — a tough sell, given the lack of respect shown for earlier pay raise requests. Meanwhile, from the office of Governor Maura Healey comes this statement: 'Bar advocates do incredibly important work to make sure that everyone has their due process rights protected, and they deserve to be paid a fair wage. Governor Healey is concerned about the negative public safety impacts of this work stoppage. She urges all those impacted to work together to reach a resolution and ensure that all defendants receive the representation to which they are entitled.' Advertisement The governor has also said she'll do 'everything' she can to end the impasse. But there still appears to be no end in sight, and it's only a matter of time before the dispute leads to consequences much more dire than a broken cannon. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Boston Globe
8 hours ago
- Health
- Boston Globe
Getting HIV is no longer a death sentence — but the fight is not over
In the next few weeks, Congress will vote on what may be the most important question lawmakers have had to decide about HIV this century: whether to continue on the path toward the elimination of the disease or to allow the country to slip back into the 1980s-era nightmare of an uncontrolled surge of the virus. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up HIV remains a threat in the United States. One in 300 Americans is already infected, and more than 30,000 new infections and 4,000 deaths occur annually. But 40 years ago, HIV was more than a threat — it was a death sentence. It was the Advertisement But an epidemic that started as a public health debacle turned into one of the field's greatest achievements: New drugs have been developed that are capable of cutting HIV Advertisement However, obstacles remain: Access to HIV care is not always easy. In order for patients to keep the virus in check, they must adhere to sometimes complex drug regimens over their lifetimes. What's more, people who get HIV are often unaware that they've been infected and can unknowingly spread the virus to others. As a result, as many as Still, policymakers remain hopeful that new cases of HIV in the United States can be eliminated entirely going forward. In his 2019 State of the Union address, President Trump announced the launch of an ambitious program he called ' However, these costs pale in comparison to the expense of managing a rise in cases that could result from funding cuts to prevention programs. It is much less expensive to prevent a case of HIV than it is to treat one. Advertisement The average American, thankfully, hears very little about HIV these days. That is a good thing — but it also means there is more opportunity for political will to keep the virus in check to wane. Or even for the basic tenets of what makes HIV deadly to be questioned. Enter Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In 2021, before he was made secretary of health and human services, he wrote in his book 'The Real Anthony Fauci' that he ' In a videotaped This past April, not long after Kennedy was confirmed as HHS secretary, Before long, Advertisement Then Kennedy took his most dramatic action. In his HIV is the most exhaustively studied virus in human history, and the vast body of evidence clearly indicates that it is an infectious cause of disease. It is deeply worrying that RJK Jr. would reclassify efforts to contain and treat HIV under an agency not responsible for infectious disease. RFK Jr.'s proposed reorganization is now before Congress. If his plan goes ahead, the consequences may not be immediately visible. HIV doesn't explode into outbreaks as soon as prevention lags. Initially, the spread of HIV infection will be invisible, particularly if our monitoring systems are shuttered. But we may wake up one day to discover that an HIV epidemic is once again raging — a scourge we worked so long and so hard to escape.
Boston Globe
8 hours ago
- Health
- Boston Globe
From personal tragedy, a mental health mission
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in March that Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Mark S. Sternman Advertisement Somerville Students could gain from greater access to school psychologists Thank you to Amanda Gokee for her coverage of John T. Broderick Jr.'s efforts to raise awareness about adolescent mental illness. I applaud Broderick's advocacy on behalf of children and teens. As young people continue to struggle with high rates of depression and other behavioral health challenges, I'd like to highlight a vital, but often overlooked, resource: school psychologists. These professionals provide critical services within schools, where adolescents spend much of their time. Their presence helps remove common barriers to care, such as transportation and insurance, making support more accessible. Advertisement According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, As we confront the growing youth mental health crisis, it's essential that we recognize the value of school psychology and invest in strengthening this crucial workforce. Jason Kaplan Newton The writer is an associate professor and chair of the school psychology department at William James College.
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Seven years, three OUIs: Does the State House have a drinking problem?
In 2022, Democratic state Representative David LeBoeuf of Worcester Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Democratic state Senator Michael Brady of Brockton Alcoholism is a disease. Any person struggling with alcoholism should be treated with compassion, empathy, and help in finding treatment. But driving while drunk is a dangerous choice. All three lawmakers faced the typical sentence for first-time offenders: a 45-day loss of license, enrollment in an alcohol education course, and payment of fees and fines. In each case, the charges were continued without a finding, to be dismissed if the offender maintained a clean record for a year. Advertisement To their credit, each man took responsibility, apologized, and pledged to improve. 'What happened was completely unacceptable. I make no excuses. I am committed to taking the necessary steps to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again,' Lawn said. In many ways, the Legislature is similar to any employer: It has a diverse body of members with different struggles. 'It's a testament that addiction affects everybody in all walks of life,' said former representative Timothy Whelan, a Republican from Brewster. 'I think it's more of a human issue than it is related to any one particular field of endeavors.' But interviews with 17 current and former lawmakers paint a picture of an institution where, particularly in the House, drinking with colleagues can be one way — though not the only way — to get 'in' with leadership and build the social bonds that make one a more effective lawmaker. As one current representative, speaking on condition of anonymity, put it, 'Being social is part of being in the building, and being social in America as an adult generally involves drinking.' Former representative Denise Provost, a Democrat from Somerville, said she never personally witnessed overconsumption, but 'as in the rest of the culture, whenever there was hospitality, there was frequently alcoholic beverages served or on offer.' Multiple current and former lawmakers said there are legislators who keep alcohol in their offices and drink with colleagues. One person recalled walking in on an alcohol-fueled party with lobbyists and lawmakers in an office during a late-night session around 2018. Several lawmakers said drinking in the State House isn't common but tends to occur during late-night sessions, particularly budget weeks, when lawmakers have to sit around for long hours, often with little to do. Advertisement Max Ratner, a spokesperson for House Speaker Ron Mariano, said in a statement, 'The Speaker does not condone alcohol consumption by Members and staff inside the State House, and expects them to use common sense and act responsibly at all times.' One former lawmaker told me he believes alcohol should be banned inside the State House, as it is in public buildings like firehouses and police stations. While that may put a damper on office holiday parties, it's an idea worth considering. Of course, part of the job of a lawmaker is attending events with constituents and lobbyists, where alcohol may be served. Multiple lawmakers told me that there are also groups of lawmakers who frequently get drinks after work. Some lawmakers compared the culture to an 'old boys' club' or a high school 'cool kids' clique. House Majority Leader Michael Moran, a Democrat from Boston who didn't respond to a request for comment, has spent $2,361 from his campaign account at the 21st Amendment, a Beacon Hill tavern, since 2024 for 20 meetings with colleagues and staff, according to campaign finance filings. Since January 2024, state officials — primarily legislators — have spent $56,591 at the 21st Amendment, as well as $92,954 at Carrie Nation and $50,710 at Emmets, two other bars near the State House, according to filings with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance. All these restaurants sell food and drink, so there's no way to know how much was spent on alcohol. Advertisement Several lawmakers interviewed for this column — generally those who live far from Boston or have children at home — say they usually go home after work. Others, including some in recovery, don't touch alcohol. Some said they weren't aware of drinking beyond occasional social events. The House may be no different from other corporate cultures. Some lawmakers drink often, some don't, and a few drink excessively. Certainly, adults are free to hang out in bars after work. But when lawmakers choose to drink, they should remember that they are public role models and the mantras drilled into 21-year-olds still apply: Find a safe and sober ride home, and friends don't let friends drive drunk. Shira Schoenberg can be reached at
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Trump's attack on in-state tuition for Dreamers is bad law — and worse policy
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Other surveys — by the Advertisement Among the targets of the administration's hostility, none elicits more sympathy from the public than the so‑called Dreamers — young people brought here unlawfully as children, who have grown up as Americans in everything but paperwork. (According to Gallup, Advertisement In lawsuits filed this spring against Texas, Minnesota, and Kentucky, the Justice Department maintains that offering in‑state tuition to students without legal immigration status — even if they were brought here as small children and essentially grew up American — violates federal law. In reality, it is the administration's assault that distorts federal law. It is also a brazen power grab that tramples states' rights, to say nothing of basic decency. Beginning in 2001, Democratic and Republican legislatures decided that if young people grow up in a state, are educated in its schools, and want to pursue higher education within its borders, it makes no sense to penalize them financially merely because of their immigration status. If there are good reasons to give a break on tuition to local students who want to go to a local college, what difference does it make whether they have a passport, a green card, or neither? Yet on April 28, President Trump Advertisement But that isn't true. Federal law does not say that undocumented immigrants must be excluded from any in-state tuition benefit. It Accordingly, the states that offer reduced tuition to undocumented immigrants condition the offer on criteria other than residency. States that offer in‑state tuition to undocumented students are acting not just humanely but rationally. Such policies reflect the common-sense principle that justifies giving a tuition break to any local student: It is in every state's interest to help its homegrown young people be as successful and well educated as possible. Lower tuition makes higher education more affordable, which in turn boosts the number of local families that can send their kids to college, which in turn expands the state's population of educated adults. A more educated population strengthens the state's economy, since college graduates are more likely to be employed and to earn higher incomes. For states like Massachusetts, which suffers from high outmigration, a particularly strong argument for the in-state tuition break is that graduates of public institutions are more likely to Advertisement None of these arguments has any logical connection to immigration or citizenship. They apply with equal force to those born abroad and to those born locally. And it is irrelevant whether those born abroad were brought to America by parents who had immigration visas or by parents who didn't. Dreamers aren't freeloaders. Like their families, they pay taxes — property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, and even the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare benefits, for which they are ineligible. (In 2022, according to the latest estimate from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants Aside from the Trumpian hard core, most Americans sympathize with the plight of undocumented immigrants who grew up in this country and have known no other home. That explains why (as Gallup reports) 85 percent of them would like Congress to make it possible for them to acquire citizenship. It also explains why in-state tuition for Dreamers has bipartisan support: The states that have enacted such policies include Oklahoma, Kentucky, California, and New York. Advertisement The Trump administration's lawsuits deserve to be dismissed on their legal merits, but they also deserve to be reviled as one more example of MAGA malevolence, which is grounded in nothing except a desire to hurt immigrants — Few Americans have any desire to punish young people who have done nothing wrong. The cruelty at the heart of Trump's immigration policy may thrill his base, but it repels a far larger America unwilling to abandon its values. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
