May | 2019 | McCormack Speaks

May 15, 2019
by saadiaahmad001
0 comments

Massachusetts Expands Protections and Rights for LGBT Groups

by Michael DiFranza, MPA student

Massachusetts has long been ahead of the curve in providing rights and protections for LGBT people compared to other states. In 2004 Massachusetts became the first state to recognize same-sex marriage.[1] Recently several new laws have been passed to extend protections in the state.

This April, MA legislature banned ‘ex-gay’ conversion therapy for youths. Conversion therapy is a practice that is aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. This practice is widely rejected by most major medical and psychological institutions like the World Health Organization, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association. Conversion therapy is dangerous, because it can be a psychologically traumatic experience for LGBT youths. This bill passed with bipartisan support and went into effect on April 8^th.[2]

On April 25^th the MA legislature passed a bill that legally allows individuals to change the sex designation on their birth record. Individuals are not limited to “female” and “male,” but are also given the option to designate as “X,” which would indicate that they do not identify as the other two options; they are another gender, or an undesignated gender. There is no requirement for health-care and medical-related documentation or a proof of name change.

Some states, such as Alabama, allow you to change your sex designation on your birth certificate only after you under-go sex reassignment surgery and legally change your name.[3] The individual, or their guardian, if they are a minor, must provide an affidavit under the penalty of perjury that the person is changing their designation to conform to their gender identity, and not for fraudulent reasons.

Driver’s licenses, learners permits, ID cards, and liquor licenses will now reflect changes in sex designation, with the “X” designation now an option on these forms of ID in Massachusetts. Plans are being put in place to change all forms of documentation issued by state agencies to include the “X” designation for gender. This bill will take effect on January 1, 2020.[4]

In 2016, MA Ballot Question 3 upheld civil rights protections for LGBT people. This prohibited discrimination based on gender identity.[5] Massachusetts had to provide these protections because currently federal civil rights laws do not. Most of the states in the U.S. do not extend protections to transgendered people. This means in large portions of the U.S. someone can be fired from a job, evicted from a home, or refused service at a business based on their gender identity.[6] Extending protections at the federal level will be critical in preventing discrimination against LGBT groups in the future. Until then state level protections must become more comprehensive in order to compensate for the lack of federal protections.

[1] “HILLARY GOODRIDGE & Others vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & Another.” GOODRIDGE vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 440 Mass. 309, 2003, masscases.com/cases/sjc/440/440mass309.html.

[2] Johnson, Chris. “Massachusetts Becomes 16th State to Ban ‘Ex-Gay’ Therapy for Youth.” Washington Blade: Gay News, Politics, LGBT Rights, 8 Apr. 2019, www.washingtonblade.com/2019/04/08/massachusetts-becomes-16th-state-to-ban-ex-gay-therapy-for-youth/.

[3] Ala. Code § 22-9A-19(d) (2004).

[4] “Bill S.2213 An Act Relative to Gender Identity on Massachusetts Identification.” Bill S.2213, 25 Apr. 2019, malegislature.gov/Bills/191/S2213.

[5] Galivn, William Francis. “2018 Information For Voters.” Elections: 2018 Information For Voters, 2019, www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele18/ballot_questions_18/quest_3.htm.

[6] Human Rights Campaign. “State Maps of Laws and Policies.” Human Rights Campaign, 2019, www.hrc.org/state-maps

May 15, 2019
by saadiaahmad001
0 comments

An Act to Protect the Commonwealth from Dangerous Persons

by Jessica Lambert, MPA student

On January 15, Governor Baker re-filed An Act to Protect the Commonwealth from Dangerous Persons. This legislation was in response to the tragic police officer deaths of Yarmouth Police Officer Sean Gannon and Weymouth Police Officer Michael Chesna. Both of these officers were killed by offenders with prior criminal records, one of whom had a long history of violence. These officers’ lives would have been spared, if Massachusetts had already adopted proper criminal justice legislation with regards to dangerous individuals.

The proposed bill includes provisions impacting our current criminal justice and courts system. It empowers law enforcement and judges to make better informed decisions with regards to withholding bail for certain individuals who have a prior history of dangerous and illegal behavior. This legislation would address the fact that in Massachusetts, “prosecutors are permitted to ask a judge to hold a defendant because of the danger the defendant poses to the community only in a limited number of cases, and under a set of procedures that do not provide the district attorneys or the courts with the information they need to make fully informed decisions” (Baker, 2018). This ties law enforcement’s hands behind their backs. District attorneys and judges are only allowed to hold individuals on the basis of dangerousness to the community in certain cases and without a full criminal history.

The Baker-Polito administration put forth a number of common sense policies to reform these processes. With regards to the court system, “this legislation expands the list of offenses which can provide grounds for a dangerousness hearing, and it also follows the long-standing federal model in including a defendant’s history of serious criminal convictions as grounds that may warrant a dangerousness hearing (Baker, 2018).” It essentially allows for the court to have all the information on a defendant when deciding whether or not that individual should be released on bail. This legislation will stop dangerous individuals from re-entering society when they are a danger to their communities. “It also ensures that a person who a court determines is a danger or who violates his or her conditions of release is held until the time of trial or other disposition of the case, rather than being released after a defined period (Baker, 2018).” This will ensure that dangerous individuals are held indefinitely until they can be given a fair trial so that they don’t hurt anyone else in the interim.

With regards to law enforcement, this bill also gives the police a more concrete way to deal with probation violations and with individuals who commit felonies. For example, allowing the police to act on and arrest “a person who they observe violating a condition of release (Baker, 2018).” Under current law, police are not allowed to do this, and officers essentially watch as criminals continually violate the pre-conditions of their release without being able to take action Additionally, the legislation, “extends the requirement that police take the fingerprints of people arrested for felonies to all people arrested, regardless of the charge, to ensure that decisions about release can be made with knowledge of a person’s true identity and full criminal history (Baker, 2018).” This allows law enforcement to make sure that they have the full history of a person who commits a felony to determine whether or not they are a danger to the community.

I would argue that this legislation offers common sense policies to protect the people and first-responders of the Commonwealth from dangerous individuals. Just a small amount of justice for the Gannon and Chesna families.

References

Baker, C. (2018). An Act to Protect the Commonwealth from Dangerous Persons. https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/09/06/Dangerous%20Persons%20Letter%20and%20Bill%20Text.pdf

May 15, 2019
by saadiaahmad001
0 comments

Criminal Justice Reform Needs More Money and More Mental Health and Drug Use Resources

by Alexandra Traganos, MPA student

Bill S.2371 was signed into legislation in April of 2018. A year later not much has changed. Can the criminal justice system really be reformed? And how so?

Bill S. 2371 ensures that law enforcement agencies that are responsible for firearms licensing, and state agencies that license child care providers, have access to sealed criminal records [1]. The legislation’s goal is to provide opportunities to break the cycle of incarceration, strengthen support for victims, and end the criminalization of poverty.

It does touch upon the opioid epidemic, but not enough. The state needs more money to reform the system and a lot more needs to be focused on mental health and drug use. These issues need to be tackled head on.

With more than 2,000 opioid overdoes a year [2] and 21,000 people incarcerated between jail and prison– what more can the courts do? Pre-trial diversion programs cost the system well over hundreds of thousands of dollars and not enough research has been done to see if there effective. Most defendants have little to no support system, which is why they re-offend. Something needs to be fixed.

Criminal justice reform is often aimed at cleaning up the states court system. But in my opinion, its agencies like the Department of Mental Health (DMH) and the Department of Public Health (DPH) that really need the cleaning up. There needs to be more available resources to reduce recidivism, which in return, affects the court system. This could include anything from free mental health evaluations for defendants to giving the homeless on “meth mile” Narcan. The state needs to start allocating more of its budget to these agencies. This would minimize cases in the court system, reducing re-offending. Bill S.2371 should have had more emphasis on the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Public Health rather than the Trial Court.

Much has been done to waive fees, bail reform, eliminate mandatory minimums, and increase the use of diversion [3] – but that isn’t enough. That is all court-based. In Suffolk County alone, eighty-five percent of people that are incarcerated have drug or alcohol offenses. More than forty-two percent have mental health issues [3]. If the state was more pro-active than re-active, maybe these numbers would be lower. If more help was aimed at tackling mental health and drug issues, crime rates would be down, and social reform wouldn’t be as much of an issue. There would be less foot traffic in the courts and more in recovery programs.

[1] https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/S2371

[2] https://www.mass.gov/inmate-and-prison-research-statistics

[3] https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/massachusetts-sets-example-bipartisan-criminal-justice-reform

May 1, 2019
by saadiaahmad001
1 Comment

MassHealth Yearly Coverage Renewal Process

By Carla Thomas, MPA Student

Applying for MassHealth is time-consuming and can be very stressful on both applicants and their families. The moments of waiting to learn which plan one qualifies for, or especially being denied the very coverage that one is in need of, is all quite a very overwhelming and difficult experience. After having to go through this crucial application torture comes a yearly renewal process that is a burden for people with severe mental and physical disabilities. Their health and financial status will likely not change, or if they do, it might not make that much of a difference in their eligibility status.

After gathering some information from a phone conversation with a MassHealth agent, I now understand that people do have the option of setting their account automatically, so that the account gets updated yearly on its own and clients don’t have to deal with the extra renewal paper work. I can only wonder if half of MassHealth clients have ever been properly informed of this option. I understand the sole purpose of having clients renew their coverage yearly is to learn if they have a new address of social security number, if their federal tax return was filled out, if there was a change in immigration or citizenship status — in other words, new information that needs to be updated. There should be an easier option for people with disabilities and for the elderly. Either their age or disability could qualify them for not having to go through the renewal process, or maybe it should be less of a burden to them.

Basically, for those who didn’t choose the automatic option, they are on their very own regardless of their health status. They either rely on family help or local community agencies. But, in addition to their daily health struggles, they have to remember to renew their MassHealth yearly, otherwise the coverage might be jeopardized or frozen. I learned that clients have a 45-day period, giving them enough time to take action and send the renewal paper work.

It sounds like a very easy task for someone like myself who’s somewhat healthy and has no medical barrier. I can only wish that such a large agency as MassHealth — whose mission is to help people in need — would spare those with severe health issues having to deal with extra paper work yearly. If you know someone who may need help filling out the renewal application, you can help them connect to a MassHealth representative at 800-841-2900, help them look for an Enrollment Center, or you can simply help them with the renewal application.

Below is the link from Mass.gov regarding MassHealth’s coverage renewal. If you or your loved ones know seniors or persons with disabilities who are currently receiving MassHealth coverage, please share this information with them.

https://www.mass.gov/how-to/renew-your-coverage-for-masshealth-the-health-safety-net-or-the-childrens-medical-security