Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Scarier Than the Boogeyman

Opinion

Scarier Than the Boogeyman
boy sitting while covering his face

April is Child Abuse Awareness Month. Going to college, I took a child welfare class to become a social worker, and we were taught about child abuse and neglect. We were taught that there are times when the government has to intervene to protect the welfare of a child and act in the child’s best interest. Growing up, I had no trust in the government. Child Protective Services (CPS) workers were labeled “baby snatchers,” and they were to be feared rather than trusted.

Early in my career, I went on home visits, and I supported women who were involved with child welfare. I saw firsthand cases of extreme neglect. I will never forget walking into a woman’s apartment where I saw three children, a baby on the floor next to a pile of milk and cereal caked into the carpet, a toddler staring blankly at a TV, and a five-year-old who smiled at me with silver teeth. The TV was blaring, and we had to announce ourselves multiple times before Mom came out of the bedroom. Mom had issues with drugs and the kids had been taken away on numerous occasions. I walked away from that visit conflicted. There were other occasions where CPS intervened, simply because mom was a survivor of domestic violence and the system was being used against the survivor by her abuser, labeling her as a bad mother, in a vindictive agenda.


Multiple things can be true at once. The government can have a role in keeping children safe and intervening when parents cannot or will not protect their children. The government can also be a bad actor and enable abuse and neglect of children. I used to work for the Child Abuse Prevention Center in San Francisco, and one of the key areas of programming was teaching children to keep themselves safe. But what do you do when the government is the one enabling the abuse and neglect of children? Today, we are seeing the government enable abuse and neglect of children in immigration detention centers.

For example, Gael, a 5 year old that was being evaluated for autism, was detained at Dilley Detention Center for 45 days, where his parents stated, “he struggled to eat, often gagging on food, and went more than a week without a bowel movement, leaving his stomach visibly swollen and causing him pain”. Dilley Detention Center in South Texas has a reputation for serving contaminated food, where children lack access to education and even basic medical care. An estimated 1,800 children had passed through Dilley as of December. Dilley is just one immigration detention center. Senator Jon Ossoff’s Office has received or identified 18 credible reports that children as young as two years old, including U.S. citizens, have been mistreated in DHS custody.

“The Dilley facility is a family residential center designed specifically to house family units together in a safe, structured, and appropriate environment…where families who have been in the U.S. illegally can get medical care, educational services, recreational opportunities, and essential daily living needs while they await deportation,” said ICE Director Todd M. Lyons. ICE also contends that, “Medical professionals complete full assessments of all detainees within 48 working hours of admission, providing immediate referrals and priority care for kids, pregnant women, and medically vulnerable residents”. Yet, in a case reported to Senator Jon Ossoff’s Office, a pregnant woman bled for days before facility staff would take her to a hospital. Once she was there, she was reportedly left in a room, alone, to miscarry without water or medical assistance for over 24 hours. In another case in Louisiana, a detainee reportedly “nearly miscarried twice” while in ICE custody.

ICE states that “Being in detention is a choice.” Yet, no parent would choose this for themselves or their child. Advocates are calling for the closure of Dilley and similar facilities. Gael was released after advocates, including child educator Ms. Rachel, spoke with Gael over Zoom and rallied public outcry for his release. If we care about protecting children and preventing child abuse, we can close these facilities, and we can hold the government accountable for its failure to protect children.

Elisabet Avalos is a leader in housing justice, developing programs for survivors of violence experiencing homelessness, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project on Domestic Violence and Economic Security.

Scarier Than the Boogeyman was first published by Latino News Network and was republished with permission.



Read More

Senators Criticize Trump Administration’s Demands to Access Health Data as a Condition for Lifesaving Aid
Roberto “Bear” Guerra/ProPublica. Source image: Getty Images

Senators Criticize Trump Administration’s Demands to Access Health Data as a Condition for Lifesaving Aid

What Happened: Citing reporting by ProPublica, eight Democratic U.S. senators have criticized the Trump administration’s demands to access the health data of millions of people as a condition of giving lifesaving aid to other countries. In a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the senators, including minority leader Chuck Schumer, said the U.S. demands were “unprecedented and at odds with U.S. policy concerning the data of American citizens.”

The inquiry into the administration’s approach to foreign health data referred to a ProPublica story published in June about agreements the U.S. struck with African countries — and the risks they posed to people there. Experts told ProPublica that the deals are vague and lack language used in most data-sharing agreements to adequately limit what information is collected and how it can be used. As a result, they said, there is an increased risk that individuals’ personal data could be exposed, misused or commercialized without their consent.

Keep ReadingShow less
As Temperatures Rise and Federal Funding Falls, Drowning Risks Grow
a group of kids in a pool
Photo by Kevin Paes on Unsplash

As Temperatures Rise and Federal Funding Falls, Drowning Risks Grow

July 25 marked World Drowning Day. More than 4000 people die from unintentional drowning in the United States each year. This translates into an average of 11 drowning deaths per day. Children ages one to four are at greatest risk, making drowning the leading cause of death for that group and the second leading cause of death for children ages five to 14.

Two emerging trends could make those numbers worse: federal funding cuts that have weakened drowning prevention efforts and hotter summers that are driving more people to water to cool off. Together, these trends threaten to deepen long-standing disparities that already place Black, Indigenous, autistic, and low-income communities at greater risk.

Keep ReadingShow less
FDA Sign at its headquarters in Washington DC. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) is a federal agency of the USA.

The FDA’s changing drug approval policies raise concerns about political influence, scientific standards, drug safety, and the future of U.S. pharmaceutical regulation.

JHVEPhoto/Getty Images

FDA Turmoil: Political Interference Threatens Drug Safety Standards

Over the past three decades, drug development in the United States accelerated dramatically. Industry spending increased tenfold between the 1980s and 2019; the number of manufacturers grew; clinical trials became more sophisticated; and new technologies and precision medicines emerged. The Food and Drug Administration kept pace, building processes, standards, and a scientific culture that supported this rapid innovation. It offered pharmaceutical companies a predictable regulatory environment and a level playing field, producing substantial benefits for consumers and researchers alike.

In little more than a year, however, the Trump administration has upended many of these FDA norms. It has tied certain drug approvals to political considerations through a new, opaque program; imposed labeling changes without new scientific evidence; forced out experienced career scientists; replaced respected experts on advisory panels; and promoted unproven therapies. While some of these moves have drawn limited media attention, most have escaped public notice—even though they threaten national health standards and consumer safety. And legal guardrails may be too weak to prevent or limit their effects.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gynecologist doing ultrasound of pregnant woman in hospital.

Rural hospital labor and delivery closures are creating maternity care deserts—and costing communities physicians, jobs, families, and economic investment.

Maskot/Getty Images

No Doctor, No Delivery, No Future

Today, less than half of rural hospitals in the U.S. still offer labor and delivery services, and since 2020, 139 of them have stopped delivering babies altogether. That's usually treated as public health statistic. It's also an economic one. Each closure doesn't just push expectant mothers into longer drives to the hospital, it pushes out physicians, jobs, young families, and the investment that follows them. So, what happens to a town after it loses its only labor and delivery unit?

The answer, it turns out, is a lot more than a longer drive to the hospital. More than a third of U.S. counties, 35.1 percent by the most recent national count, are now what researchers call maternity care deserts: places with no hospital or birth center offering obstetric care and no obstetric clinicians at all. Since the end of 2020, 139 rural hospitals have stopped delivering babies, and today less than half of rural hospitals nationwide still offer labor and delivery services.

Keep ReadingShow less