“Innocent But Sentenced to Death”
That was the title of a powerful segment on the Katie, the Katie Couric talk show. Couric interviews Anthony Graves and Kurt Bloodsworth. Kirk Bloodsworth gained notoriety for being the first person exonerated by DNA evidence. Anthony Graves spent eighteen years in prison and time on death row. Remarkably, Graves remained hopeful and unbelievably buoyant.
A few weeks ago I wrote about the growing problem of veteran suicide. I have since been asked to follow up and talk about ways in which the problem could be solved and the policies that are in place to help struggling vets. I have done a little bit more research and have found some interesting facts about vet suicide. According to a VA study vets are killing themselves at a rate of 22 per day, which equates to 8,000 deaths a year. Around 69 percent of these suicides are individuals over the age of 50, a statistic that surprised me at first read. What this tells us is, as our older veterans begin to age, the problems associated with their service do not simply go away. As the combat winds down in Afghanistan and with operations finished in Iraq the veteran population is going to continue to rise as incentives to stay active start to dwindle we will soon be dealing with much larger group of people, many of whom may suffer from mental problems.
The question obviously becomes “what to we do about it?” As I write this, I find myself thinking I am not sure there is a policy directive or program that can really make progress. Many programs are already in place. The VA has health clinics and a 24-hour hotline that is designed for veterans to be able to call and work through their problems. Stop Soldier Suicide (SSS) is a veteran-led nonprofit with a mission of reducing vet suicide. There are many of these organizations all throughout the country. SSS believes one of the major problems is identifying the actual reasons for suicidal thoughts. These reasons run the entire spectrum of emotional issues from disability, depression, joblessness, and PTSD. The problem with identifying these issues is one must first have a chance to evaluate the veteran, which means they (the veteran) actually have to call and ask for help. When vets seek mental help from the VA they can wait an average of 50 days before receiving treatment, which may be just too long to wait. Such is the case with many VA services; there are just simply too many veterans and not enough providers for care to be rendered quickly. One step the VA has taken to help with this problem is the added chat and text functions to the Veteran Crisis Line system which may aid in helping some vets talk out problems before its too late.
As I mentioned in my previous post about suicide I know several Marines that I served with who chose to end their own life. Some of these guys I knew pretty well, others not as much. But I cannot name a single reason why any of them actually followed through an committed suicide, which is perhaps why coming up with policies for prevention is almost impossible.
Some ideas include throwing money at the problem through congressional bills and legislation designed to help the VA and other programs. I am not going to sit here and say that’s not going to help; I just can’t reason exactly how it will. Another solution is to encourage more people to get involved but again, when a crisis line has answered nearly a million calls since 2007 adding a couple more phone lines isn’t going to make a huge of impact either. One of the better solutions is to do everything we can to reduce the stigma associated with asking for help. In the military and particularly the infantry feeling sad or depressed is a sign of weakness. We have an annual safety briefing in which we talk about suicide but most of us laugh it off and wait for our commander to release us for the weekend. When I was getting out we had to go through a program talking about the transition from military life to civilian life, but one thing that might have been helpful for those struggling is mandatory counseling session prior to leaving active service. Granted, having to this would have made me mad and wasted my time, but if there is a chance that a young military person can have some issues identified before they become civilians it might just be worth it.
For some further reading the Huffington Post has an ongoing series called “Invisible Casualties” that is worth checking out; this series will explain these issues with much more depth.
Last week, Hawaii state Rep. Jo Jordan voted “no” on SB1, the Hawaii Senate bill that will initiate marriage equality in the state. Jordan is an openly gay Democrat, and supports marriage equality. And I applaud her vote. Let me back up and explain.
As part of a special session called by Gov. Neil Abercrombie for the sole purpose of deciding the marriage issue, the Hawaii House of Representatives heard over 55 hours of testimony from citizens last week before voting 30 to 19 to pass SB1. The House made several amendments to the bill, mostly in regards to expanding the Senate’s exemptions for religious organizations and ministers. But to Jordan, even the House’s amended version of SB1 was not sufficient to address concerns she developed after listening to hours of testimony from Hawaiians.
Jordan gave two answers to explain her vote. First, she was worried that a few provisions of the House version threatened the soundness of the law should it be challenged in court. First, Jordan noted that the bill contained an ambiguous parental rights section that would grant undue Native Hawaiian status to children of same-sex couples married in the state. (Note: the House omitted this section in its final version of the bill). Jordan also pointed to the lax domicile requirements, which – unlike opposite-sex marriages – might not require same-sex couples to be domiciled in the state to obtain a marriage license. Second, Jordan expressed her belief that the House version’s religious exemptions are not expansive enough to ensure that ministers and religious organizations opposed to same-sex marriage on theological grounds are not required to perform these marriages. Jordan, a proud member of her area’s LGBT community, said that she received extremely negative reactions to her decision to vote no from members of this very community.
I support Jordan’s vote primarily for the first reason she addressed. As someone who will personally benefit when my own state of Pennsylvania eventually ensures marriage equality, I do not want any marriage bill that is less than perfect to be passed by the legislature and signed into law. A sloppily-drawn law can be easily over-turned by a court when marriage opponents inevitably file lawsuits. I appreciate that legislators who advocate marriage equality bills must take their opportunities where they can find them, but pushing a bill with vague provisions and inadequate First Amendment exemptions will turn out to be a zero-sum game when it comes before a court. Moreover, protests votes like Jordan’s could hopefully prompt another round of amendments in the other house of the legislature before the bill is sent to the governor for his signature.
To the extent that marriage equality legislation in general should contain religious exemptions, I also agree with Jordan. I support a broad reading of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and all other First Amendment guarantees; a cramped reading of these provisions in marriage equality legislation would be needlessly corrosive to religious liberty. Strategically, broad religious exemptions are also necessary considering that the perennially “blue” states – save Oregon – have already established marriage equality. The state-to-state progress of marriage equality is not an inevitable or forgone conclusion. Marriage advocates must respond to the moderately conservative or centrist politics of states that like Pennsylvania and Ohio if they hope to win the “big picture.” That said, Jordan’s fears for the Hawaii exceptions specifically seem unfounded as they were modeled on the rather expansive Connecticut religious exemptions, which even exempt for-profit religious institutions.
People like Jordan serve a very important purpose: they must chasten their fellow advocates who walk heedlessly ahead without regard to future dangers. I sincerely hope that Hawaii’s LGBT community will re-embrace Jordan as a fair public servant who is unwilling to sign onto flawed legislation if it means endangering the larger picture of sustainable marriage laws.
(For sources, please see underlined hyperlinks within this article).
Happy Veterans Day to all those of who have served. In commemoration of the occasion here is an episode of the BBC’s Moral Maze podcast elegantly entitled “The Morality of Remembrance.” In England, their version of Veterans Day is Remembrance Day. Where we have the yellow ribbon, they adorn the poppy flower.
Although the debate is an English take on the holiday, many of the issues discussed apply in the American context. For instance, what is patriotism? What should we honoring? How should we be honoring? It is interesting that in the United States the holiday is marked by a status, whether or not one is a veteran; while in England, it is about an act, remembering past wars and warriors. In a sense, Veterans Day is simpler in the US, we know who and what to honor. In the United Kingdom, the issue is more contested. When the holiday is framed in terms of remembrance, the question becomes what should we be remembering?
Happy Veterans Day to all those of who have served. In commemoration of the occasion here is an episode of the BBC’s Moral Maze podcast elegantly entitled “The Morality of Remembrance.” In England, their version of Veterans Day is Remembrance Day. Where we have the yellow ribbon, they adorn the poppy flower.
Although the debate is an English take on the holiday, many of the issues discussed apply in the American context. For instance, what is patriotism? What should we honoring? How should we be honoring? It is interesting that in the United States the holiday is marked by a status, whether or not one is a veteran; while in England, it is about an act, remembering past wars and warriors. In a sense, Veterans Day is simpler in the US, we know who and what to honor. In the United Kingdom, the issue is more contested. When the holiday is framed in terms of remembrance, the question becomes what should we be remembering?