When Children Are Treated as Adults: How One Alabama Teen Inspired My Fight for Justice

Girl behind bars.
Girl behind bars. By Nejron Photo; Adobe Stock. File #: 32689299

I did not enter the world of juvenile justice reform through textbooks, research questions, or curiosity about public policy. I entered it through a child. A girl I first met when she was just fourteen years old, wide-eyed, quiet, and already carrying a lifetime of burdens on her small frame. I was assigned as her CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) at a time when her life was marked by instability, poverty, and trauma. She was living in conditions most adults would find impossible, yet she still greeted me each week with a hesitant smile, a mix of hope and uncertainty in her eyes. Her resilience was unmistakable, even if she didn’t yet recognize it in herself.

Over the years, I watched her survive circumstances that would flatten most adults. She moved between unsafe living situations, often unsure where she would sleep or whether she would eat. She navigated school while juggling the chaos around her. She experienced loss, betrayal, and instability. And yet she showed up. She tried. She hoped. She fought to stay afloat.

Nothing in those early years prepared me for what would come next.

At sixteen, through a series of events, she was just present when a crime occurred. One she did not commit, did not plan, and did not anticipate. But in Alabama, presence is enough to catapult a child into the adult criminal system. Under Alabama’s automatic transfer statute, Ala. Code § 12-15-203, youth charged with certain offenses are moved to adult court entirely by default, without judicial evaluation and without any meaningful consideration of developmental maturity, trauma history, or the child’s actual involvement.

The law did not acknowledge her age, her vulnerability, her role in the event, or her long history of surviving poverty, abuse, and instability. It simply swept her into the adult system as if she were fully responsible for the incident and for her own survival. Overnight, she went from being a child in need of care to being treated as an adult offender. She was taken to an adult county jail, where her new reality consisted of four concrete walls, metal doors, and the unrelenting loneliness that comes from being a minor in a facility designed for grown men.

 

Child behind bars.
Child behind bars. By Tinnakorn; Adobe Stock. File #: 691836996

Because the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) requires strict “sight and sound separation” between minors and adults, and because most Alabama jails have no youth-specific housing units, she was placed into what the facility calls “protective custody.” In reality, this translated into solitary confinement. She spends nearly every hour of every day alone. No peers. No programming. No classroom. No sunlight. No meaningful human contact.

Not for days. Not for weeks. But for over an entire year.

Even now, writing those words feels unreal. A child, my former CASA child, has spent more than a year in near total isolation because Alabama does not have the infrastructure to house minors safely in adult jails. And it was this experience – witnessing her slow unraveling under the weight of isolation – that pushed me into research and now advocacy.

But the research came after the heartbreak.
She was the beginning, and she remains the reason.

Understanding the System That Failed Her

When I began researching how a child like her could be locked in an adult jail for over a year, the data was overwhelming. In 2023 alone, an estimated 2,513 youth under age eighteen were held in adult jails and prisons in the United States, according to The Sentencing Project. Alabama is not an outlier — it is fully participating in this national trend of treating children as adults based on the offense they are charged with, rather than who they are developmentally.

The more I learned about solitary confinement, the more horrified I became.
And yet none of it surprised me, not after watching what it is doing to her.

A young woman in handcuffs.
A young woman in handcuffs. By Nutlegal; Adobe Stock. File #: 259270712

Human Rights Watch reports that youth held in solitary confinement are 19 times more likely to attempt suicide than their peers in general populations. The United Nations Mandela Rules explicitly prohibit solitary confinement for anyone under eighteen, identifying it as a form of torture. The ACLU has documented the widespread use of isolation for youth in jails due to Prison Rape Elimination Act compliance limitations. And reports from the Prison Policy Initiative and the Equal Justice Initiative show that children in adult facilities face elevated risks of physical assault, sexual violence, psychological decline, and self-harm.

Developmental science aligns with these findings. Decades of work by scholars such as Laurence Steinberg show that adolescent brains are not fully developed — especially the regions governing impulse control, long-term planning, and risk assessment — but are exceptionally responsive to rehabilitation and growth.

Yet Alabama’s transfer laws ignore this entire body of scientific knowledge.

Even more troubling, youth transferred to adult court are 34% more likely to reoffend than youth who remain in the juvenile system. Adult criminal processing actively harms public safety.

Meanwhile, evidence-based juvenile programs, such as family therapy, restorative justice practices, and community-centered interventions, can reduce recidivism by up to 40%.

Everything we know about youth development suggests that rehabilitation, not punishment, protects communities.

Everything we know about juvenile justice suggests that children should never be housed in adult jails.

Everything we know about solitary confinement suggests that no human, let alone a child, should endure it.

And yet here she was, enduring it.

What Isolation Does to a Child

It is one thing to read the research. It is another to watch a child absorb its consequences.

When I visit her, she tries to be brave. She sees me on the video monitor and forces herself to smile, though the strain shows in her eyes. She tells me about the silence in the jail at night, the way it wraps around her like a heavy blanket. She talks about missing school — math class, of all things — and how she used to dream about graduating. She describes the fear, the uncertainty, the way days blend into each other until she loses track of time entirely.

She has asked me more than once if anyone remembers she is only seventeen.
She wonders whether her life outside those walls still exists.
She apologizes for crying — apologizes for being scared, as if fear is a defect rather than a reasonable response to months of isolation.

Watching her navigate the psychological toll of solitary confinement is one of the most difficult experiences I have had as an advocate. The changes have been slow, subtle, and painful: her posture tenser, her voice quieter, her expressions more guarded, her hope more fragile.

Children are resilient, but resilience has limits.
Solitary confinement breaks adults.
What it does to children is indescribable.

A woman in despair.
A woman in despair. By yupachingping; Adobe Stock. File #: 246747604

Why Alabama Must Reform Its Juvenile Transfer Laws

The more I researched, the more I understood that her story is not an exception; it is a predictable outcome of Alabama’s laws.

Ending this harm requires several critical reforms:

  1. Eliminate automatic transfer.

A child’s fate should not be decided by statute alone. Judges must be empowered to consider the full context — trauma history, level of involvement, mental health, maturity, and the circumstances of the offense.

  1. Ban housing minors in adult jails.

Other states have already taken this step. Alabama must follow.

  1. End juvenile solitary confinement.

Solitary confinement is not a protective measure; it is a human rights violation.

  1. Expand access to juvenile rehabilitation programs.

The science is clear: youth rehabilitation supports public safety far more effectively than punishment.

  1. Increase statewide transparency.

Alabama must track how many minors are transferred, how they are housed, and how long they remain in adult facilities. Without data, there can be no accountability.

She Deserves Justice

I am writing a policy brief because of her.
I studied this policy landscape because of her.
I advocate for systemic change because of her.

Her story is woven into every sentence of my research, every recommendation I’ve made, every argument I’ve formed. She is the reason I cannot walk away from this fight, not when I’ve witnessed what the system does to the children most in need of protection.

She deserves safety.
She deserves support.
She deserves a justice system that recognizes her humanity.

And she is not alone. There are countless children in Alabama — many living in poverty, many from marginalized communities, many without stable adult support — who are forced into adult systems that were never designed for them.

Their stories matter.
Their lives matter.
And the system must change.

Light falling over a girl's eyes.
Light falling over a girl’s eyes. By stivog; Adobe Stock. File #: 422569932

What You Can Do

If you believe that children deserve dignity, fairness, and protection, here are ways to support change:

  • Support organizations working to reform youth justice in Alabama:
    Equal Justice Initiative, Alabama Appleseed, ACLU of Alabama, or me — I can use all the help I can get.
  • Share this story to help build awareness.
  • Contact state legislators and demand an end to automatic transfer and juvenile solitary confinement.
  • Become a CASA and advocate for children whose voices are often ignored.
  • Vote in local elections, especially for district attorneys, sheriffs, and judges — leaders whose decisions directly impact youth.

Conclusion: Children Are Not Adults—Alabama’s Laws Must Reflect This Truth

The science is clear, the research is clear, and the human impact is undeniable.
Children are developmentally different. Children are vulnerable. And, in my opinion, children deserve grace, understanding, and second chances.

When we place children in adult jails, when we isolate them for months, when we treat them as if they are beyond repair, we do more than violate their rights—we violate our own values as a society.

The 17-year-old girl I have advocated for over the past three years is a reminder of what is at stake. She is not a statistic. She is not a file number. She is a child — a child whose life, dignity, and future must matter as much as any adult’s.

She is the beginning of my story in this work, and she remains at its heart.
Her experience makes it impossible to ignore the urgency of reform.
And her resilience makes it impossible to lose hope.

Alabama can do better.
Alabama must do better.
And children like her are counting on us to make sure it happens.

Woman behind bars
Woman behind bars; By primipil; Adobe Stock. File #: 524235023

Alabama’s “Invisible Disabilities” ID Proposal

Human Rights Perspective on the Proposal to Put “Invisible Disabilities” on Alabama IDs 

Box for ballot papers on desk and young African American man with disability sitting in wheelchair and making his choice.
Box for ballot papers on desk and young African American man with disability sitting in wheelchair and making his choice. By: pressmaster. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 580784797

There is buzz around Alabama’s proposal to designate “invisible disabilities” on state ID cards by the end of this fiscal year. This legislative initiative has sparked significant debate and attention. In November 2025, a bill was introduced in Alabama that would allow individuals to add an “invisible disability” designation to their driver’s licenses or state ID cards. Ontario Tillman, the state representative who is introducing this measure, argues that this “protective” measure could help law enforcement and first responders understand and quickly identify persons who may have non-apparent disabilities such as autism, PTSD, or traumatic brain injury. Tillman argues that this would be helpful for law enforcement and other officials to know because people with these and other invisible disabilities may respond to officers in unexpected ways that could cause situations to spiral dangerously. By equipping law enforcement and first responders with the information that the person they are engaging with has an invisible disability, Tillman hopes that there would be more patience and understanding built between responders and the person with the disability.

Invisible Disability ID Markers Elsewhere

States like Alaska, Maryland, and Colorado have started adding invisible disability indicators to driver’s licenses and ID cards, but they are taking different routes and raising similar debates. Alaska lets residents voluntarily add an invisible disability designation to licenses or IDs through its DMV, framing it as a tool to signal needs in situations like traffic stops or emergencies without revealing a specific diagnosis. Colorado offers a small icon on state IDs for people with invisible disabilities and, in the first year and a half of its implementation, 1,096 people signed up for the marker. In Maryland, “Eric’s Law” created an optional invisible disability notation after disability activist Eric Blessed Carpenter Grantham pushed for the state to offer this accommodation; the Maryland Department of Transportation now treats the marker as one more tool for safety and understanding. Across these states, the basic idea is similar: make it easier for disabled people to get accommodations or de-escalation in high-stress situations by building a quiet signal into ID systems.​

People’s reactions, though, show how complicated it feels to put disability information on something as central as an ID. Supporters, including some disability advocates and families, say these markers can reduce misunderstandings with law enforcement, explain why someone might not respond typically in a crisis, and help folks access assistance in travel, medical, or security settings. Critics worry about privacy, data misuse, and the risk that a symbol meant to protect could expose disabled people to profiling or discrimination, especially if officers or agencies lack proper training. The same design that could make interactions safer may also force people to disclose something deeply personal just to move through public life, which is why most of these programs stress that the markers are voluntary and part of a broader conversation about rights, safety, and trust.​

The Sunflower Movement

The Sunflower Movement takes a different, more global approach by using a simple visual symbol—a yellow sunflower on a green background—to quietly say, “I have a non-visible disability; I may need a little extra time or support.” The Hidden Disabilities Sunflower program started in UK airports and has spread across airlines, transit systems, and public venues in the U.S. and worldwide, with lanyards, pins, or badges that travelers can choose to wear. For people who travel, the appeal is that you don’t have to verbally explain a diagnosis every time you go through security or check in; instead, staff trained on the symbol are supposed to slow down, offer clearer instructions, or provide small accommodations like extra time, seating, or help navigating noisy, crowded spaces.​

Airports from Albany to Boise and Nashville have adopted the sunflower lanyard program as part of disability awareness and inclusion initiatives, often pairing it with staff training and signage so people know what the symbol means. Travelers with autism, chronic pain, anxiety, or other invisible conditions have described feeling more seen and less judged when wearing the lanyard, especially in stressful spaces like TSA lines or boarding gates. At the same time, the sunflower is not legally binding—unlike ADA accommodations—and depends heavily on staff attitudes; if workers aren’t trained or take it as “just a nice idea,” the symbol can lose its power and even feel performative. For many in our generation, the Sunflower Movement sits at the intersection of design and dignity: it’s a low-tech, opt-in signal that can make travel more humane, but it also reminds us that real inclusion still requires policy, training, and accountability behind the symbol.

CRPD and Human Dignity

While there are clearly benefits to implementing such IDs, there are also human rights concerns that we need to be aware of when placing identifying markers on government documents. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities emphasizes respect for inherent dignity, autonomy, and privacy, which implicitly warns against measures that increase stigma or surveillance. An ID marker might help in some emergencies, but it can also conflict with the right to privacy and non-discrimination if used coercively or without strong safeguards.On one hand, the designation could protect life and security (civil and political rights) in police encounters; on the other, it could undermine equal treatment in employment, housing, or education if IDs are widely requested or copied, thereby harming economic, social, and cultural rights. From a human rights perspective, it is important to consider this bill’s implications for privacy, potential misuse of data, and the risk of profiling. There is the potential for harmful labeling labeling and hidden discrimination practices through this policy, particularly for marginalized communities already facing over-policing.​

Conclusion

For Alabamians with “invisible” disabilities, this new ID proposal raises immediate questions: Who controls disability disclosure? How do policies intended to “help” sometimes deepen exclusion? And how can we push for alternatives—like better training, crisis-response reform, and universal design—rather than relying on labels that follow disabled people everywhere they go? Creating a human-rights-oriented world requires creativity and innovation, and ID markers and sunflowers are just two methods among many that we could implement to advance this cause. In pursuit of human rights, let’s be sure to consider the pros and cons of every step we take.

Amplifying Indigenous Rights & Reclaiming Sovereignty: A Human Rights Perspective in 2025

Amplifying Indigenous Rights & Reclaiming Sovereignty: A Human Rights Perspective in 2025

A view of sign "Respect Indigenous Lands" during The Climate Strike on Burrard Bridge in Vancouver
A view of sign “Respect Indigenous Lands” during The Climate Strike on Burrard Bridge in Vancouver By: Margarita Source: Adobe Stock Asset ID#: 424352523

Local Example: Indigenous Youth and Environmental Advocacy

Indigenous communities worldwide have endured centuries of marginalization, land loss, and cultural erosion from colonial policies—patterns mirrored in Alabama by the Mvskoke (Creek), Cherokee, and Choctaw peoples. The principles of self-determination (UNDRIP Art. 3), cultural integrity (UNDRIP Art. 8), and land rights (UDHR Art. 17) form the backbone of international frameworks like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), yet they’ve been systematically violated here. Understanding the legal, historical, and cultural ties between these principles and the human rights violations committed against indigenous peoples helps unpack questions around local sovereignty, environmental justice, and global human rights. This post links these global issues to Alabama’s realities, centering voices like the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (PCI) in their fight for cultural survival.

The Ongoing Challenge: Legal Barriers

Despite international frameworks like UNDRIP and national laws intended to protect Indigenous rights, significant challenges remain. The 1830 Indian Removal Act still echoes in legal briefs, and blood-quantum rules continue to limit tribal membership and threaten the continuity of communities. In Alabama, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians remains the only federally recognized tribe, which means many groups lack access to the critical resources and legal protections that come with federal recognition.

So, what echoes of the 1830 Indian Removal Act do we still see in legal briefs today? The big thing is how federal power over Native nations gets justified. Lawyers and courts still reference the government’s “plenary power” to control Native land, citizenship, and policy. This logic comes straight from the same paternalistic, colonial mindset that led to forced removals and broken treaties in the first place. In human rights language, this is a problem because it clashes with the principle that all peoples have the right to determine their own affairs and maintain control over their culture and territory. This is simply called the right to self-determination. When legal arguments rely on these old precedents, it shows that the legacy of the Indian Removal Act isn’t just history—it’s still shaping the boundaries of Indigenous rights today.

Now, let’s talk blood quantum. Blood quantum is the idea of using fractions—like “one-quarter” or “one-eighth” Native ancestry—to decide who is officially recognized as Indigenous. This system was imposed by the U.S. government as a way to shrink tribal rolls, limit legal obligations, and ultimately erode Indigenous communities over time. From a human rights perspective, blood quantum rules undermine the rights to identity, community, and non-discrimination. They reduce belonging to math, not lived culture. Over generations, these rules threaten to erase entire groups by making it harder for people to claim their heritage or pass it on.

Understanding blood quantum rules is a real-world example of how discrimination can be built into legal systems and policies—not just through obvious prejudice, but through technicalities that seem neutral on the surface. History is full of legal exclusions, and learning about Indigenous struggles connects to broader fights for justice and equality that affect all marginalized communities.

In summary, blood quantum rules conflict with core human rights values: the right to dignity, equality before the law, and the right for peoples to define their own identity. Recognizing how these rules work helps us see where human rights fall short in practice, and why these issues matter for anyone who cares about justice.

Opportunities for support and community do exist– the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Minority Association of Pre-Health Students supports underrepresented pre-med students—including those from Indigenous backgrounds—through mentorship and support services, and beyond the classroom, students can engage with Indigenous culture and history through campus and community events. For example, the Mvskoke Nation Creek Friends Festival in Tory, Alabama, and the Trail of Tears Remembrance Ride in northern Alabama offer opportunities to learn directly from Indigenous leaders and participate in cultural preservation.​

The Importance of Awareness and Informed Engagement

The challenges faced by Indigenous communities—such as language loss, environmental threats, and legal barriers—are significant. However, awareness and informed participation are powerful tools for change. People can make a difference by learning more, attending events, and engaging in campus discussions about human rights.

Conclusion

True justice for Indigenous communities in Alabama and elsewhere extends far beyond simply recognizing these groups’ history and struggles. It requires an ongoing commitment to learning, listening, and advocating for meaningful change. This means examining the systems and policies that have contributed to inequality and being willing to challenge them, even when it’s uncomfortable. Supporting Indigenous-led movements and respecting their sovereignty are crucial steps in this process.

Education is also a powerful tool—by learning about Indigenous histories and current issues, we can dispel myths and foster greater empathy, justice, and a moral society. But knowledge alone isn’t enough; it’s essential to translate understanding into action, whether that’s through volunteering, policy advocacy, or standing in solidarity at community events. Amplifying Indigenous voices ensures that solutions reflect the needs and perspectives of those most affected.

Ultimately, building a human rights community benefits everyone. Each of us has a role to play, whether as students, educators, or neighbors. When we choose to engage, support, and advocate, we help create a future where human rights and justice are not just ideals and theories, but realities experienced by all.

AI in Mental Health Diagnostics

Digital cloud earth floating on neon data circle grid in cyberspace particle wave.
Image 1: Digital cloud earth floating on neon data circle grid in cyberspace particle wave. Adobe Express Stock Images. ZETHA_WORK. #425579329

In recent years, the promise of artificial intelligence (AI) in mental-health care has grown rapidly. AI systems now assist in screening for depression or anxiety, help design treatment plans, and analyze huge volumes of patient data. However, emerging evidence shows that these systems are not neutral: they can embed and amplify bias, threaten rights to equality and non‐discrimination, and have psychological consequences for individuals. We’ll be examining how and why bias arises in AI applications for mental health, the human rights implications, and what psychological effects these developments may carry.

The Rise of AI in Mental Health

AI’s application in mental health is appealing. Many people worldwide lack timely access to mental-health professionals, and AI systems promise scale, cost-efficiency, and new capabilities, like detecting subtle speech or behavioral patterns, that might identify issues earlier. For example, algorithms trained on speech patterns aim to flag depression or PTSD in users.

In principle, this could extend care to underserved populations and reduce the global burden of mental illness. But the technology is emerging in a context of longstanding disparities in mental health care; differences in who is diagnosed, who receives care, and who gets quality treatment.

How Bias Enters AI-based Mental Health Tools

Bias in AI systems does not begin with the algorithm alone; it often starts with the data. Historical and structural inequities, under-representation of certain demographic groups, and sensor or model limitations can all embed biased patterns that then get automated.

A recent systematic review notes major ethical issues in AI interventions for mental health and well‐being: “privacy and confidentiality, informed consent, bias and fairness, transparency and accountability, autonomy and human agency, and safety and efficacy.”

In the mental health screening context, a study from the University of Colorado found that tools screening speech for depression or anxiety performed less well for women and people of non‐white racial identity because of differences in speech patterns and model training bias. A separate study of four large language models (LLMs) found that for otherwise identical hypothetical psychiatric cases, treatment recommendations differed when the patient was identified (explicitly or implicitly) as African American, suggesting racial bias.

These disparities matter: if a diagnostic tool is less accurate for certain groups, those groups may receive delayed or improper care or be misdiagnosed. From a rights perspective, this raises issues of equality and non-discrimination. Every individual has a right to healthcare of acceptable quality, regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other status.

Human Rights Implications

Right to health and equitable access

Under human rights law, states have obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to health. That includes ensuring mental health services are available, accessible, acceptable and of quality. If AI tools become widespread but are biased against certain groups, the quality and accessibility of care will differ, and that violates the equality dimension of the right to health.

Right to non-discrimination

The principle of non-discrimination is foundational: individuals should not face less favorable treatment due to race, gender, language, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, or other prohibited grounds. If an AI mental health tool systematically under-detects problems among women or ethnic minorities or over-targets mental-health evaluation for other groups, discrimination is implicated. For instance, a study found LGBTQIA+ individuals were much more likely to be recommended mental health assessments by AI tools than was clinically indicated based on socioeconomic or demographic profile.

Right to privacy, autonomy and dignity

Mental health data is deeply personal. The use of AI to screen, predict or recommend treatment based on speech, text or behavior engages issues of privacy and autonomy. Individuals must be able to consent, understand how their data is used, challenge decisions, and access human oversight. The systematic review flagged “autonomy and human agency” as core ethical considerations.

Accountability and due process

When decisions about screening, diagnosis, or intervention are influenced by opaque algorithms, accountability becomes unclear. Who is responsible if an AI tool fails or produces biased recommendations? The software developer? The clinician? The institution? This ambiguity can undermine rights to remedy and oversight. The “Canada Protocol” checklist for AI in suicide prevention emphasized the need for clear lines of accountability in AI-driven mental health systems.

Differential labeling and stigma

When AI systems target certain groups disproportionately, for example, recommending mental health assessments for lower-income or LGBTQIA+ individuals when not clinically indicated, it may reinforce stigma. Being singled out for mental health screening based on demographic profile rather than actual need can produce feelings of being pathologized or surveilled.

Bias in therapeutic relationship

Mental health care depends heavily on the relationship between a person and their clinician. Trust, empathy, and feeling understood often determine how effective treatment will be. When someone believes their provider truly listens and treats them fairly, they’re more likely to engage and improve. But if technology or bias undermines that sense of understanding, people may withdraw from care or lose confidence in the system.

Reduced effectiveness or misdiagnosis

If an AI tool under-detects depression among certain groups, like women or ethnic minorities, and that leads to delayed treatment, then the psychological impact of possible longer suffering, increased severity, and reduced hope is real and harm-producing. One study found that AI treatment recommendations were inferior when race was indicated, particularly for schizophrenia cases.

These psychological effects show that bias in AI is not just a technical defect; it can ripple into lived experience, identity, mental health trajectories, and rights realization.

Chatbot conversation Ai Artificial Intelligence technology online customer service.
Image 2: Chatbot conversation with AI technology online customer service. Adobe Express Stock Images. khunkornStudio.
#567681994

Why AI Bias Persists and What Makes Mental Health AI Especially Vulnerable

Data limitations and under-representation

Training data often reflect historical care patterns, which may under-sample certain groups or encode socio-cultural norms that do not generalize. The University of Colorado study highlighted that speech-based AI tools failed to generalize across gender and racial variation.

Hidden variables and social determinants

One perspective argues that disparities in algorithmic performance arise not simply from race labels but also from un-modelled variables, such as racism-related stress, generational trauma, poverty, and language differences, all of which affect mental health profiles but may not be captured in datasets.

Psychology of diagnostic decision-making

Mental health diagnosis is not purely objective; it involves interpretation, cultural nuance, and relational trust. AI tools often cannot replicate that nuance and may misinterpret behaviors or speech patterns that differ culturally. That raises a psychological dimension: people from different backgrounds may present differently, and a one-size-fits-all tool may misclassify them.

Moving Toward Rights-Respecting AI in Mental Health

Given the stakes for rights and psychology, what should stakeholders do? Below are guiding principles anchored in human rights considerations and psychological realities:

  1. Inclusive and representative datasets
    AI developers should ensure that training and validation data reflect diverse populations across race, gender, language, culture, and socioeconomic status. Without this, bias will persist. Datasets should also capture social determinants of mental health, such as poverty, trauma, and discrimination, rather than assuming clinical presentations are uniform.
  2. Transparency, explainability, and human oversight
    Patients and clinicians should know if an AI tool is being used and how it functions, and they should remain able to challenge its outputs. Human clinicians must retain decision-making responsibility; AI should augment, not replace, human judgement, especially in mental-health care.
  3. Bias-testing and ongoing evaluation
    AI tools should be tested for fairness and performance across demographic groups before deployment, and, once deployed, they should be continuously monitored. One large study found that AI recommendations varied significantly by race, gender, and income.
    Also, mitigation techniques are emerging to reduce bias in speech- or behavior-based models.
  4. Rights to remedy and accountability
    When AI-driven systems produce harmful or discriminatory outcomes, individuals must have paths to redress. Clear accountability must be established among developers, providers, and institutions. Regulatory frameworks should reflect human rights standards: non-discrimination, equal treatment, and access to care of quality.
  5. Psychological safety and dignity
    Mental health tools must respect the dignity of individuals, allow for cultural nuance, and avoid pathologizing individuals based purely on demographic algorithms. The design of AI tools should consider psychological impacts: does this tool enhance trust, reduce stigma, and facilitate care, or does it increase anxiety, self-doubt, or disengagement?
  6. Translate rights into policy and practice
    States and professional bodies should integrate guidelines for AI in mental health into regulation, licensing, and accreditation structures. Civil society engagement, which includes patient voices, mental-health advocates, and rights organizations, is critical to shaping responsible implementation.

Looking Ahead: Opportunities and Risks

AI has enormous potential to improve access to mental health care, personalize care, and detect risks earlier than ever before. But, as with many new technologies, the impacts will not be equal by default. Without a proactive focus on bias, human rights, and psychological nuance, we risk a two-tier system: those who benefit versus those left behind or harmed.

In a favorable scenario, AI tools become transparent and inclusive, and they empower both clinicians and patients. They support, rather than supplant, human judgement; they recognize diversity of presentation; they strengthen trust and equity in mental health care.
In a less favorable scenario, AI solidifies existing disparities, misdiagnoses or omits vulnerable groups, and erodes trust in mental-health systems, compounding rights violations with psychological harm.

The path that materializes will depend on choices made today: how we design AI tools, how we regulate them, and how we embed rights and psychological insight into their use. For people seeking mental health support, equity and dignity must remain at the heart of innovation.

Conclusion

The use of AI in mental health diagnostics offers promise, but it also invites serious rights-based scrutiny. From equality of access and non-discrimination to privacy, dignity and psychological safety, the human rights stakes are real and urgent. Psychologists, technologists, clinicians, regulators and rights advocates must work together to ensure that AI supports mental health for all, not just for some. When bias is allowed to persist, the consequences are not only technical, but they’re also human.

“I Didn’t Know It Had a Name”: Understanding Labor Trafficking — and How to Spot It

AdobeStock_136448884 - Maid changing pillows during housekeepingBy Robert Kneschke
AdobeStock_136448884 – Maid changing pillows during housekeeping By Robert Kneschke

When Rosa* arrived to clean guest rooms at a popular beach hotel, the recruiter’s promises still echoed: “$12 an hour, free housing, and a chance to learn English.” Her temporary work visa had cost thousands in “fees,” which the recruiter said she could repay from her first months of wages. But the free housing was a crowded motel room with six other women. The “fees” kept growing. Her passport was locked in a supervisor’s desk “for safety.” Twelve-hour shifts stretched into sixteen. If she complained, the supervisor reminded her that she “owed” the company and could be sent home in debt, or reported to immigration. Rosa wasn’t chained. She could walk to and from work. Yet every part of her life, documents, debt, threats, and isolation, was controlled.

Rosa didn’t know it had a name. It does: labor trafficking.

What is labor trafficking?

Under U.S. law, labor trafficking (also called forced labor) occurs when someone obtains another person’s labor or services through force, fraud, or coercion. This includes threats of serious harm, schemes, abuse of legal process (for example, threatening deportation), or withholding documents and wages to compel work. 

Globally, the International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates 27.6 million people are in forced labor on any given day. A 2021 report estimated that 50 million people are in “modern slavery,” which also includes forced marriage.  In 2024, the ILO reported that illegal profits from forced labor in the private economy reached $236 billion annually, a 37% increase over a decade; this is evidence that coercion is lucrative for traffickers and intermediaries. 

AdobeStock_36854977. Black Businessman holding black bag full money. By RODWORKS
AdobeStock_36854977. Businessman holding a bag full of money. By RODWORKS

How does it happen? The “means” traffickers use

The ILO identifies 11 indicators that commonly appear in forced labor situations. You rarely need all 11 to determine risk; one or more strong indicators can be enough to signal danger. These are abuse of vulnerability, deception, restriction of movement, isolation, physical or sexual violence, intimidation and threats, retention of identity documents, withholding wages, debt bondage, abusive working and living conditions, and excessive overtime. 

Rosa’s story shows several in practice:

  • Debt bondage via unlawful recruitment fees and deductions.
  • Withholding documents (passport confiscation).
  • Threats and abuse of legal process (“We’ll call immigration”).
  • Excessive overtime and abusive conditions.

These tactics can entrap anyone, citizens and migrants, men and women, adults and youth.

AdobeStock_321877815-1. Man putting smartphone, passport and money into safe. By New Africa
AdobeStock_321877815-1. Man putting smartphone, passport and money into safe. By New Africa

Where labor trafficking shows up (it’s closer than you think)

Contrary to the myth that labor trafficking only happens “somewhere else,” it also occurs in wealthy countries, including the United States, across both hidden and highly visible industries. 

  1. Agriculture, forestry, and food processing: Seasonal, remote worksites and complex contracting chains create risk. Temporary visa programs (such as H-2A for agriculture and H-2B for non-agricultural seasonal work) can be both lifelines and levers for coercion when employers or labor brokers retaliate or threaten to withhold visa renewals. The Hotline data and policy research from Polaris Project detail cases involving wage theft, unsafe housing, and retaliation.
  2. Hospitality, cleaning, and landscaping: Hotels, resorts, commercial cleaning, and landscaping often rely on subcontractors and staffing agencies, which can obscure who is responsible for wages, safety, and housing. The National Human Trafficking Hotline has identified hundreds of potential victims linked to hospitality supply chains.
  3. Construction and manufacturing: Long hours, dangerous sites, and layers of subcontracting elevate the risk of coercion, document retention, and threats. The ILO’s indicators surface repeatedly in these sectors.
  4. Domestic work and caregiving: Workers in private homes can be isolated from the public and regulators, leaving them vulnerable to withheld wages, restricted movement, and threats. The ILO’s global estimates include millions of cases of domestic work under forced labor.
  5. Seafood and global supply chains: Beyond U.S. borders, supply chains can mask the use of forced labor in fishing, seafood processing, apparel, electronics, and more. The U.S. Department of Labor’s List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor is a sobering catalog, as it lists 204 goods from 82 countries (as of Sept. 5, 2024). Policymakers and purchasers use it to identify high-risk imports and improve due diligence.
AdobeStock_573441418. Exhausted little girl sitting on floor concrete wall background. child labor and exploitation
AdobeStock_573441418.  Exhausted little girl sitting on floor – labor exploitation. By AungMyo

State action and import bans

In recent years, the U.S. has restricted imports tied to forced labor under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) and other authorities, adding companies to enforcement lists and blocking imports in sectors such as footwear, aluminum, and seafood. These steps matter because cutting off profits reduces incentives to exploit. 

Common threads: What to watch for

While every case is unique, patterns repeat:

  1. Recruitment fees and debt: Workers are charged unlawful or inflated fees by recruiters. Debts balloon through deductions for housing, equipment, or transport, paid back through labor; the worker can’t freely leave.
  2. Document confiscation: Passports, IDs, or visas are held “for safekeeping,” removing mobility and increasing fear.
  3. Threats and abuse of legal process: Supervisors threaten deportation, blacklisting, or calling the police if workers complain.
  4. Isolation: Workers are transported to remote sites, housed on-site, or told not to speak to neighbors, customers, or inspectors.
  5. Wage theft and excessive overtime: Unpaid overtime, below-minimum wages, or pay withheld until a season ends.
  6. Subcontracting opacity: When multiple entities sit between the worker and the brand, accountability gets murky, and traffickers exploit the gaps.

Who is at risk?

Anyone facing economic hardship, discrimination, or a lack of legal protections can be targeted. Migrant workers, especially those whose visas tie them to a single employer, can be especially vulnerable to coercion. Data from the National Human Trafficking Hotline’s analysis shows thousands of victims holding temporary visas at the time of their abuse. 

But vulnerability isn’t limited to migrants. Youth aging out of care, people in debt or homelessness, and disaster-displaced families are at an elevated risk of labor exploitation. Traffickers prey on need, not nationality.

AdobeStock_265465062. Teenage girl with other homeless people receiving food.By New Africa
AdobeStock_265465062. Teenage girl with other homeless people receiving food. By New Africa

How is labor trafficking different from “regular” workplace abuse?

Workplace violations (like unpaid overtime) are serious and enforceable through agencies like the U.S. Department of Labor, but they are not all trafficking. Trafficking involves a compelling mechanism (force, fraud, or coercion) that deprives a worker of a meaningful choice to leave. If you see indicators like debt bondage, document confiscation, or threats of serious harm or deportation, you may be looking at forced labor, which is a crime. 

What progress looks like

Governments, companies, and civil society have tools to reduce risk:

But the profit motive remains powerful, given the staggering $236B in illegal profits stemming from forced labor, so vigilance and reporting are critical. 

AdobeStock_475597494.jpeg. "Ban goods made with forced labor " By AndriiKoval
AdobeStock_475597494.jpeg. “Ban goods made with forced labor ” By AndriiKoval

How you can help (even if you’re not sure it’s trafficking)

You don’t have to decide whether a situation is “definitely” trafficking. If you notice multiple indicators, such as debts used to control, threats, confiscated documents, isolation, abusive conditions, withheld wages, or excessive overtime, say something. Trained specialists can sort out whether it’s a labor law violation, trafficking, or both, and connect people to help.

In the United States

  • National Human Trafficking Hotline – 1-888-373-7888 (24/7), text “BEFREE” (233733), or online report/chat: humantraffickinghotline.org. (The hotline is supported by Health and Human Services and is transitioning operators; the number and channels remain active.)
  • DHS Blue Campaign / ICE HSI Tip Line – To reach federal law enforcement directly about suspected trafficking or smuggling: 1-866-347-2423 or submit an online tip.
  • U.S. Department of Labor, Wage & Hour Division (WHD) – For wage theft, child labor, or overtime violations that may overlap with trafficking: 1-866-4-US-WAGE (1-866-487-9243) or file a complaint online.
  • OSHA – For unsafe or abusive working conditions posing imminent danger: 1-800-321-OSHA (6742).
  • 911 – If someone is in immediate danger.

If you’re an employer or community leader, post these numbers in break rooms, faith centers, and shelters—and ensure reporting won’t trigger retaliation.

Bringing it back to Rosa

One winter night, a guest slipped Rosa a folded flyer with a number and the words: “You have rights.” She called during her only free hour. The advocate didn’t ask her to be certain; they asked about indicators, debt, documents, threats, wages, and hours, and created a safety plan. Law enforcement and labor investigators coordinated with a local nonprofit. Rosa got her passport back, moved into safe housing, recovered wages, and started English classes. She still cleans rooms, but now she does it on her own terms, and she keeps extra copies of that number in her apron pocket.

AdobeStock_239599722.jpeg. Young chambermaid with clean towels in bedroomBy New Africa
AdobeStock_239599722.jpeg. Young chambermaid with clean towels in bedroom By New Africa

If you or someone you know might be experiencing labor trafficking:

You don’t need to be sure. Calling could be the beginning of someone’s freedom.

Unchained hands raised to the sky
AdobeStock_54553304. Formerly tied hands raised to the sky. By Marina

*The name and story used are a representation of labor trafficking victims.

Memory Against Forgetting: Families of Colombia’s Falsos Positivos Lead the Fight for Dignity

When we talk about justice, it’s tempting to think first of courtrooms, judges, and laws. But for many Colombians, especially the families of victims of falsos positivos, justice has been built not only in tribunals but in memory itself: in the photos carried to marches, the murals painted in neighborhoods, the names shouted at demonstrations, the rituals performed year after year so that forgetting is impossible.

Between 2002 and 2010, thousands of young men — mostly poor, often from rural or marginalized communities — were killed by members of Colombia’s military and falsely presented as guerrillas killed in combat. These extrajudicial executions, known as falsos positivos, were incentivized by a warped system that rewarded body counts with promotions, money, and leave time.

For the families of the deceased, the pain was double: they suffered not only the violent death of their children, brothers, or fathers, but also the stigma of being told these dead loved ones were “terrorists.” For decades, official narratives denied their innocence. In response, parents, siblings, and loved ones took on the role of guardians of memory.

Today, as Colombia’s Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) finally begins to hand down historic rulings against perpetrators, the country is reminded that these families’ insistence on remembrance is what made justice possible at all.

Sign that states mothers of Soacha and Bogota do not forget
Image 1: Sign “The mothers of Soacha and Bogota do not forget”. Source: Yahoo Images.

Memory as Resistance

In Colombia, the act of remembering has often been a political gesture. For mothers who lost their sons to falsos positivos, memory is more than grief: it is resistance against erasure.

One of the most emblematic groups is the Mothers of Soacha (Madres de Soacha). In 2008, dozens of women discovered their sons had been lured from Bogotá’s outskirts with promises of work, only to be killed hundreds of miles away and buried as guerrillas. For them, memory became a form of activism:

Photographs at protests: They carried enlarged portraits of their sons to public squares, confronting officials and society with faces that proved they were not anonymous guerrillas but young men with families, lives, and dreams.

Annual commemorations: Every year, they gather to honor the date of disappearance or death, keeping the stories alive in the community.

Murals and art: Walls in Soacha and beyond carry painted faces of the murdered youth, transforming public space into testimony.

This memorialization disrupts the state’s attempt to rewrite their deaths as a part of “combat.” It asserts: they lived, they were innocent, and they will not be forgotten.
Sign in favor of the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz
Image 2: Sign in favor of the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz. Source: Yahoo Images.
The Weight of Stigma

For families, memory is not only about honoring loved ones but also about countering stigma. Many recall being told by neighbors, even relatives, that their sons must have been guerrillas — why else would the army say so? The official record branded them criminals, compounding the loss with shame.

By publicly naming them, retelling their stories, and refusing silence, families reclaimed dignity. Memory became a way of restoring the humanity stripped away by both the bullets and the lies.

In that sense, memorialization is not passive. It is an active form of justice: refusing the false narrative, demanding truth, and forcing institutions to confront uncomfortable realities.

From Memory to Justice: Recent Developments

The persistence of families has borne fruit. This September (2025), the JEP issued its first substantive ruling on falsos positivos. Twelve ex-military officers from the Batallón La Popa were held responsible for 135 killings between 2002 and 2005. Instead of prison, their sentences include restorative projects: building memorials, contributing to truth-telling initiatives, and reparations.

For many families, the ruling is bittersweet. On one hand, it is the first time the state has officially recognized that their loved ones were not guerrillas but civilians murdered under a policy of deception. On the other, some feel restorative sanctions are insufficient for crimes of this magnitude.

Yet, what is undeniable is this: without the relentless work of victims’ families, there would be no case, no ruling, no justice at all. Their memory work forced the truth into public view, long before courts were willing to listen.

Memory Across Generations

Memorialization also has a temporal dimension. Parents age; siblings pass the torch. Children who never met their uncles now grow up seeing their faces in photos at family homes. Some youth groups have joined mothers in painting murals or organizing cultural events to keep the memory alive.

This intergenerational transmission matters. It means falsos positivos are not confined to dusty files or occasional headlines; they remain part of Colombia’s living social fabric. Memory ensures continuity, so history cannot be rewritten by official silence.

The Global Echo

Colombia is not alone in this. Around the world, victims’ families have taken up memorialization as a path to justice:

These movements share a belief: memory is part of justice when justice is delayed.

Image of women holding up signs with pictures
Image 3: Mothers of Plaza de Mayo. Source: Yahoo Images.

The Fragility of Memory

Yet memory is fragile. Murals are painted over. Political shifts can reduce funding for memorial projects. Denialist narratives re-emerge. Even now, some Colombian politicians downplay the scale of falsos positivos or frame them as “errors” of war rather than systematic crimes.

This is why the work of families remains so urgent. Their voices remind us that memory cannot be outsourced to institutions alone. It lives in communities, in stories told around dinner tables, in names recited at vigils.

A Country Still Healing

Colombia’s 2016 Peace Accord promised both truth and justice. The JEP was born to address atrocities like falsos positivos. Its rulings — like the one in September — are milestones. But healing requires more than verdicts.

It requires listening to families, supporting memorialization efforts, and integrating their memory work into the nation’s broader historical narrative. Museums, school curricula, public memorials, and state apologies can all help ensure that the falsos positivos are never repeated and never forgotten—and to that end, some rulings have ordered soldiers and officers to participate in community memorial projects, recognizing memory as a necessary path toward reconciliation.

 Memory as Our Responsibility

The parents and relatives of falsos positivos victims have shown extraordinary courage. They remind us that memory is not just about the past, it is about shaping the present and protecting the future.

By carrying photos, painting murals, and speaking truth, they have forced Colombia, and the world, to confront a reality that many preferred to ignore. Their work demonstrates that justice is not only legal but also cultural and emotional.

A Call to Remember

As readers, we too have a role. We can support memorialization efforts, share victims’ stories, and resist denialist narratives. If you are in Colombia, visit a memorial site, attend a commemoration, or learn the names of the victims in your region. If you are outside of Colombia, read about the Mothers of Soacha, amplify their voices, and connect their struggle with global movements for truth and justice.

Because in the end, forgetting is complicity. And memory — stubborn, painful, luminous memory — is the first step toward dignity, accountability, and peace.

 

Alterations to the State Department’s Human Rights Reports Threatens Global Accountability

In a move that has alarmed human rights advocates and foreign policy experts alike, the U.S. State Department is undergoing a dramatic reorganization—one that includes stripping key content from its annual human rights reports. As NPR reported on April 18, 2025, internal memos instructed staff to remove references to over 20 categories of human rights violations, including prison conditions, restrictions on freedom of assembly, political corruption, and violence against marginalized groups.

These reports have long served as a global standard, used by scholars, advocates, journalists, and international institutions to assess rights conditions worldwide. Their sudden dilution is not just bureaucratic streamlining; it’s a quiet dismantling of accountability.

A shocked reporter holding a camera.
Image 1: A shocked reporter holding a camera. Source: Yahoo Images.

What’s Changing—and Why It Matters

Since 1977, the U.S. Department of State has released detailed annual country reports on human rights practices. Though sometimes criticized for political inconsistency, these reports have been broadly recognized as crucial documentation of abuses across the globe—from extrajudicial killings in authoritarian states to censorship, labor exploitation, and systemic discrimination.

But under the new directive, entire categories of analysis are being erased. Sources within the department confirmed that topics such as discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, abuse of asylum seekers, and politically motivated arrests will no longer be discussed. These are not fringe issues—they reflect core violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), including:

  • Article 5: Protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
  • Article 9: Freedom from arbitrary arrest
  • Article 19: Freedom of expression
  • Article 21: Equal access to public service and fair governance
  • Article 2: Freedom from discrimination on any basis

When the U.S. selectively omits these rights from its assessments of other nations, it undermines the very foundation of universal human rights—that they are indivisible, interdependent, and apply to all people, everywhere.

The Chilling Effect of Omission

The most dangerous censorship is often the quietest. When a government stops discussing certain abuses, the signal to others, particularly authoritarian regimes, is clear: these violations no longer matter enough to be named.

An image of a Human Rights protest
Image 2: An image of a Human Rights protest. Source: Yahoo images.

In countries where local journalists, dissidents, or NGOs depend on international validation to draw attention to abuses, U.S. human rights reports can serve as a shield. Without public acknowledgment from a prominent diplomatic actor, local violations are easier to obscure, deny, or normalize. Human Rights Watch, for example, has long cited State Department reports as part of its advocacy efforts, particularly in places where press freedom is under threat.

This shift will also hinder asylum claims, many of which rely on credible evidence of persecution or unsafe conditions. When categories like “political persecution” or “anti-LGBTQ+ violence” are scrubbed from official reports, it becomes harder for individuals to prove their eligibility for protection under international refugee law.

Even beyond humanitarian concerns, this policy shift has strategic costs. The U.S. has historically positioned itself, however imperfectly, as a moral voice in international affairs. This voice is now compromised. Diplomats and foreign service officers will be asked to promote democratic values abroad without the backing of their own agency’s complete assessment of those values.

Former ambassador Tom Malinowski noted that this move “betrays the people in repressive countries who depend on the U.S. to tell the truth about what they’re facing”. It also gives foreign governments an easy out: why heed U.S. criticism when that criticism is suddenly partial and politically selective?

A Broader Retrenchment of Rights Infrastructure

These changes aren’t occurring in isolation. They’re part of a broader rollback. As Reuters and AP have reported, the State Department’s ongoing reorganization includes eliminating 132 offices and slashing 15% of domestic staff, with many of the cuts affecting divisions focused on human rights, democracy, and civil security.

The office of the Undersecretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights has been dissolved, with responsibilities now folded under a new, less focused Coordinator of Foreign and Humanitarian Affairs. Programs on global women’s rights, diversity and inclusion, and atrocity prevention have been defunded or absorbed into more general roles.

People protesting for their democratic freedom
Image 3: People protesting for their democratic freedom. Source: Yahoo Images.

Taken together, this appears to be a conscious effort to deemphasize rights-based diplomacy at a time when such diplomacy is critical for millions of people around the world. From a human rights perspective, this shift represents a failure of positive obligation. Governments that claim leadership in human rights are not merely expected to avoid violations—they are also responsible for upholding, promoting, and defending these rights domestically and internationally.

The United States’ retreat from honest human rights reporting signals that some lives and liberties are no longer worth documenting, let alone defending. This undermines Article 1 of the UDHR itself: that all people are “endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Instead, the new approach views human rights as selective and strategic tools, rather than universal moral commitments. That’s not just an administrative shift. It’s an ideological one.

Woman with tape over her mouth
Image 4: Woman silenced with tape over her mouth. Source: Yahoo Images.

Conclusion: What Happens When the Witnesses Go Silent?

Human rights reporting isn’t just about keeping records. It’s about bearing witness, recognizing suffering, and giving people living under oppression the affirmation that they are seen. When a government as influential as the United States chooses to omit entire categories of injustice from its global reports, it effectively tells victims: “Your pain doesn’t count.”

In the long arc of justice, documentation is everything. We cannot fight abuses we refuse to name. And we cannot claim to protect rights if we edit them for convenience. If we want to live in a world where power is held accountable, the act of recording the truth must remain sacred. Otherwise, silence becomes complicity—and complicity, policy.

Russia/Ukraine War Update Until March 3, 2025: U.S. Relations, Deals, and Human Rights Violations

Ukrainian soldiers on a tank, holding the Ukrainian flag.
Image 1: Ukrainian soldiers on a tank, holding the Ukrainian flag. Source: Yahoo Images.

On Tuesday, February 18th, Russia and the U.S. began a discussion regarding an end to the Russia/Ukraine war. Along with talk about ending the war, the two countries spoke about making improvements to their economic and diplomatic ties. Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State; Michael Waltz, U.S. President Trump’s national security advisor; Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Secretary of State; and Yuri Ushakov, President Putin’s foreign affairs advisor, were present at the meeting.

If you’re asking yourself, “Wait, isn’t there a country missing from the meeting?” You would be correct. Ukraine was not present, nor were they invited to the meeting in which the future of their state was being discussed. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy stated that Ukraine would disregard any conclusion the meeting came to, as Ukraine had not been a part of it.

Ukraine received a great deal of American support throughout the Biden Administration’s term in office. Ukraine Oversight reports and tracks funding and aid that has come from the U.S. during the time period of February 2022 until December 2024. The total amount has been $182.8 billion. Of that total $83.4 billion has been used, $57 billion is obligated but not yet distributed, $39.6 billion has been appropriated but is not obligated to be paid, and $2.7 billion has expired. Ukraine has also received aid from the U.S. and other G7 nations, which are France, Japan, Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom, in the form of a loan program that would provide $20 billion to be paid from frozen Russian assets. The website further breaks down where the money has come from. The U.S. Department of State also offers explanations and breakdowns of what the money was spent on and the aid that was sent to Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has repeatedly thanked the U.S. for the aid Ukraine has received since the invasion in 2022. In 2022, President Zelenskyy gifted the U.S. Congress with a Ukrainian war flag. He has also thanked the American people on multiple occasions, as well as stated that their money is an investment in the security and future of Ukraine and its people.

U.S. President Trump recently stated that Ukraine had three years to put a stop to this war and that they (presumably meaning Ukraine) should have never started it to begin with. As was stated in my last blog in relation to the Russia/Ukraine war, Russia started the war by invading Ukraine in 2022. Russia also previously illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. To this day Russia still occupies Crimea. While Rubio had exclaimed his excitement for the end of the war and the concept of bringing Russia and the U.S. closer together, Ukrainian forces continued to be overwhelmed by the illegal invasion of Russian troops.

If you are interested in the human rights violations that occurred in 2024 regarding the Russian Ukrainian war, check out my blog post, Russia-Ukraine War Update and Interview With Ukrainian UAB Student. For this blog I will focus on recent developments about U.S. and Ukrainian relations, Ukrainian and European relations, and human rights violations committed by Russia.

Tensions Between Ukraine and U.S. Grow

Two soldiers hold the American flag and the Ukrainian flag.
Image 2: Two soldiers hold the American flag and the Ukrainian flag. Source: Yahoo Images.

Ukraine is a land rich in critical minerals such as ilmenite, which is used in the production of titanium. The vast potential of Ukraine’s critical mineral industry has been untapped due to war and state policies. Recently, the Trump Administration proposed that U.S. companies should have access to these mining pits for ilmenite in exchange for U.S. aid in the war.

The first deal that the U.S. proposed would have Ukraine pay $500 billion worth in minerals while receiving no guarantee of security. They would receive weapons and Ukraine would have to pay a debt for generations. This agreement was rejected by President Zelenskyy on February 15th because it did not protect either Ukraine nor the country’s interests. In an AP article, they talk of Ukrainians’ feelings of unease at the prospects of U.S. businesses on their land. Many people felt that too much would be given away in exchange for weapons.

The second agreement that was drawn up stated that Ukraine would give 50% of its entire revenue on natural resources into a fund. This fund would then be used to invest in projects in Ukraine. As of now, the projects that would be funded are not defined in the agreement and will be further defined in later discussions. This agreement still does not guarantee the security of Ukraine.

The success of this agreement would have been determined in part by the success of private investment in Ukraine’s mineral resources. The ongoing war and reconstruction of Ukrainian infrastructure could hinder investment into the mining of these minerals. With no outlines for Ukraine security, mining companies are hesitant about investing in the country. Mining is an extremely expensive industry, and with the threat of Russian attacks, it is extremely unlikely that a corporation would risk investing in Ukraine.

This new agreement was going to be discussed in person between President Zelenskyy, who traveled to the U.S. on February 28th, 2025, and President Trump. However, during the meeting, not much was able to be said as President Trump, who was seated next to Vice President J.D. Vance, yelled at Ukraine’s President. The mineral agreement was not signed, as was originally intended, during that meeting.

Ukraine has been struggling against Russian forces for three years. Comments made by U.S. defense secretary, Pete Hegseth that Ukraine must give up hope of regaining its territory or getting NATO membership, have poured salt on wounds that have not been given time to heal in the last three years. Ukrainians have been worried over the position they will be left in after a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine is decided.

For years, the overall Western consensus has been that no agreement will come at the cost of Ukrainians still living in places now occupied by Russia. That viewpoint may now be changing in the United States, and Ukraine and other nations located close to Russia fear that a break in the war will allow Russia’s military to regroup and potentially invade Ukraine again as well as other parts of Europe.

European Nations Uniting

Stairway with Ukrainian flag painted on the walls.
Image 3: Stairway with Ukrainian flag painted on the walls. Source: Yahoo Images.

On Sunday, March 2, 2025, the leaders of Ukraine, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Canada, Finland, Sweden, France, the Czech Republic, Romania, and Britain, as well as the Turkish Foreign Minister, attended a meeting about Ukraine at London’s Lancaster House. This was done in a show of support for Ukraine. During the meeting, the leaders agreed that it was in everyone’s interest that defense efforts be expanded so that peace could finally be accomplished for Ukraine.

It is worth noting that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer still said that the support of the U.S. was critical for this plan to work. In other words, while Europe must be at the forefront of Ukraine’s defense, the U.S. must back the rest of Europe for the defense to work.

While Europe is attempting to support and back Ukraine, on March 3, 2025, U.S. President Trump officially paused all military aid to Ukraine in hope of pressuring President Zelenskyy into negotiating peace talks with Russia. These peace talks, if rushed, will most likely give Russia the upper hand and negate any hope Ukraine has had for regaining the Ukrainian land that is currently occupied by Russia.

Russia’s Continued Human Rights Violations

Ukrainian flag standing over a destroyed building.
Image 4: Ukrainian flag standing over a destroyed building. Source: Yahoo Images.

Amnesty International stated that any peace talks that do not include justice and repercussions for the international laws violations and human rights violations that have occurred against Ukraine will only serve to prolong Ukrainian suffering. Throughout the three years that Russia has been invading Ukraine, Russia has continued to target civilian infrastructure.

Residential buildings, schools, cultural heritage sites, and hospitals are some of the civilian infrastructure that has been destroyed by Russian forces. In my previous blog about the war, I wrote that the summer of 2024 was the deadliest time for children in Ukraine. Children are the most vulnerable members of society. Russia’s disregard for the lives of Ukrainian civilians, specifically children, is a violation of human rights. Since the invasion of Ukraine, thousands of schools have either been destroyed or have fallen under the control of Russia.

During Russia’s occupation of Crimea, people have been convicted of discrediting Russian armed forces, which violates the right to freedom of expression. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that all people have the freedom of opinion and expression. When those freedoms are interfered with, it is a violation of human rights. Crimean Tatars who are imprisoned have also been denied medical care. Additionally, 6,000 prisoners of war (POW) continue to be detained by Russian forces. POW and civilians alike have been subject to torture. In the year of 2024, Russia charged at least 120 Ukrainian POWs with terrorism. Since then, they have all been executed.

It is estimated that, as of July 2024, 14,000 Ukrainian citizens had been wrongfully and unlawfully detained by Russia. There are reports of war crimes and crimes against humanity being inflicted on Ukrainian civilians. These offenses include torture, sexual violence, extrajudicial killings, and denials of fair trials. In Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), it is stated that torture or inhuman punishment is a violation of human rights.

Many Ukrainian civilians have been subject to arbitrary arrest, and over 50,000 Ukrainians have been reported missing. Arbitrary arrest is the unlawful arrest and detainment of a person by a government without due process. Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that arbitrary arrest, exiles, and detentions are human rights violations.

In places occupied by Russia, 1.6 million Ukrainian children must attend schools, learn the curriculum, and abide by the rules of invaders, where Ukrainian children are deprived of learning their language, cultural heritage, and history. If students are to continue their Ukrainian education, they must do so online. This is in violation of Article 26 of the UDHR, which pertains to the right to education and the parents choice of their child’s education and Article 27 of the UDHR, which states that people have the right to participate in the cultural life of the community.

Conclusion:

As is stated in my last blog about the Russia and Ukraine war, there are a couple of things you can do to help defend human rights in this situation. The U.N. Refugee Agency and the Ukrainian Red Cross Society continue to send humanitarian aid to Ukraine. If you are able and willing, these sites take donations.

You can also help protect human rights by staying informed and reading reliable sources. Disinformation on Ukraine and Russia has run rampant, and when people turn a blind eye to the truth, it is easy for human rights violations to go on unchecked. Updates on the Ukraine and Russia war are occurring daily. Make sure to continue checking for updates and to keep yourself informed.

Navigating the Impact of NIH Cancer Research Funding Cuts 

In early 2025, the U.S. biomedical research community faced significant changes due to substantial reductions in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), particularly affecting cancer research. These developments have sparked widespread discussion among scientists, healthcare professionals, policymakers, and the public. This blog will aim to provide a balanced examination of the recent NIH funding cuts, their implications for cancer research, and the broader context surrounding these decisions. 

NIH biomedical research center
Image 1: NIH Biomedical Research Center in Baltimore. Source: Yahoo! Images

Understanding the NIH Funding Reductions 

The NIH, a cornerstone of U.S. medical research, has traditionally supported a vast array of studies, including those focused on cancer. In 2025, the administration implemented significant budgetary changes, notably reducing indirect cost reimbursements for research institutions from an average of 60% to a capped rate of 15%. Indirect costs cover essential expenses such as facility maintenance, utilities, and administrative support, which are crucial for the everyday operations of research labs. 

These adjustments were part of a broader initiative led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk, aiming to streamline federal spending. The administration projected that these cuts would save approximately $4 billion annually. While fiscal responsibility is important, the abrupt nature of these changes has raised questions about the potential risks to the nation’s biomedical infrastructure. 

Implications for Cancer Research 

Cancer research is an area where sustained investment has historically led to life-saving innovations. Advances in immunotherapy, targeted drug therapies, and precision medicine have dramatically improved survival rates for several types of cancer. However, these breakthroughs result from years of incremental research, often supported by NIH grants. 

The reductions in NIH support have led to concerns about the future of ongoing studies, the initiation of new projects, and the overall momentum in the fight against cancer. Institutions like the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) have expressed apprehension that these funding cuts could delay the development of new therapies and hinder access to clinical trials, especially in underserved communities. Moreover, the potential slowdown in research progress raises concerns about the long-term impact on patient outcomes and the country’s ability to maintain its leadership in biomedical innovation. 

Additionally, early-phase research, which often carries the highest risk but also the most potential for groundbreaking discoveries, is especially vulnerable to funding cuts. Many of these projects rely on public funding because they cannot have private investment yet. Without sufficient support, promising leads may never get the chance to be explored. 

Economic and Workforce Considerations 

Beyond the scientific implications, the funding reductions have economic ramifications. Research institutions across the country rely on NIH grants not only for scientific purposes but also as a large source of employment. The cuts have led to hiring freezes, layoffs, and a general sense of uncertainty within the research community. 

Early-career scientists, in particular, face challenges in securing positions and funding, potentially leading to a decline in talent ranging from academics to industry or even other sectors. This shift could have long-term effects on the innovation pipeline and the diversity of research perspectives. The potential loss of highly trained researchers might also compromise the quality of mentorship available to future generations of scientists. 

Legal and Political Responses 

The funding changes have prompted legal actions and political debates. A coalition of 22 states filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that the abrupt changes to NIH funding policies could jeopardize critical research and violate administrative procedures. 

In Congress, reactions have been mixed. Some lawmakers have voiced strong opposition to the cuts, emphasizing the importance of sustained investment in medical research. Others have supported the administration’s efforts to reduce federal spending, highlighting the need for fiscal responsibility. The political discourse that’s happening reflects a broader national conversation about the balance between economic efficiency and public investment in science. 

People researching in a lab
Image 2: Researchers working in a science lab. Source: Yahoo! Images

International Context and Competitiveness 

Another dimension of the funding debate involves the global landscape of cancer research. The United States has long been a leader in biomedical innovation, attracting top talent from around the world. However, as other countries increase their investments in science and technology, funding instability in the U.S. could lead to a shift in the global research balance. 

Nations like China, Germany, and South Korea have been expanding their research funding, particularly in emerging areas like gene editing and personalized medicine. Reduced NIH funding could make the U.S. less competitive in these fields, potentially leading to fewer international collaborations and a decline in scientific influence. 

Historical Precedents and Lessons 

This is not the first time NIH funding has faced uncertainty. Historical data shows that flat or declining NIH budgets have correlated with decreased research productivity and fewer grant applications being funded. During the budget sequestration of 2013, many research projects were delayed or canceled, and similar consequences are anticipated in the wake of the 2025 cuts. 

However, the scientific community has also shown resilience. Philanthropic organizations, private foundations, and public-private partnerships have started stepping in to fill funding gaps. For example, the Cancer Moonshot initiative, launched in 2016, allowed both government and private resources to accelerate research. Examples like this may become increasingly important in the future. 

Patient Perspectives and Public Engagement 

From the perspective of patients and advocacy groups, the funding cuts represent not just a policy shift but a personal concern. Many patients rely on cutting-edge treatments developed through NIH-supported research. Delays in trials or the discontinuation of research programs could directly impact access to new therapies. 

Public engagement has become a critical component of the response to the cuts. Grassroots campaigns, petitions, and awareness events have emerged to advocate for restored funding. Organizations like the American Cancer Society and Stand Up To Cancer have mobilized supporters to contact legislators and raise public awareness about the stakes involved. 

Looking Ahead: Balancing Efficiency and Innovation 

The recent NIH funding cuts show the complex interplay between government policy and scientific advancement. While efforts to streamline government spending are a legitimate aspect of public administration, it’s essential to consider the possible long-term consequences of these actions on critical areas like cancer research. 

As the nation navigates these changes, continuing conversations among stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, patients, and the public, is necessary to ensure that the U.S. continues encouraging innovation while maintaining fiscal prudence. Collaborative funding models, greater transparency in policy decisions, and increased support for early-career researchers should ideally all play a role in adapting to the new funding landscape. 

Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that scientific progress continues and that the U.S. remains a major player in cancer research and healthcare innovation. 

Children’s Shows Today: Their Impact on Child Development and Behavior 

Overview 

Children’s television shows have a big influence on how young children learn and behave in a time when digital media permeates every aspect of daily life. Both positive and negative consequences can result from the content children consume, ranging from social skills and cognitive development to emotional regulation and moral development. It is crucial to look at how these shows affect young audiences in both positive and possibly negative ways as programming keeps changing to include new themes and methods of education.  

Young boy watching television.
Image 1: Young boy watching television. Source: Yahoo! Images

The Evolution of Children’s Programming  

Over the past few decades, children’s television has undergone substantial changes. The foundation for media aimed at teaching literacy, social skills, and emotional intelligence was established by conventional educational shows such as Sesame Street and Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. These programs’ emphasis on realistic relationships, slow-paced storytelling, and likable characters made it possible for young viewers to learn things in an entertaining yet developmentally appropriate way.  

Children’s programming nowadays comes in various forms, such as interactive series, educational cartoons, stories with an adventure theme, and content that is only available on streaming services. As digital platforms like Netflix, Disney+, and YouTube Kids have grown in popularity, kids now have more access to content than ever before. Although this accessibility opens new avenues for enjoyment and education, it also brings up issues with screen time, the suitability of the content, and the long-term consequences of digital consumption.  

Positive Impacts of Children’s Shows  

Cognitive and Language Development   

A lot of children’s programs are made with learning objectives in mind. Storytelling, problem-solving, and language development are all incorporated into shows like Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood, Bluey, and Dora the Explorer. According to research, preschool-aged children can benefit from well-structured educational programs that help them detect patterns, develop critical thinking skills, and improve their language skills. Asking questions and waiting for answers are examples of interactive components that promote active engagement as opposed to passive viewing.  

Social and Emotional Learning   

Children’s shows often cover concepts like cooperation, empathy, and conflict resolution. While Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood specifically teaches emotional regulation techniques through songs and relevant scenarios, Paw Patrol and Doc McStuffins are examples of programs that show teamwork and problem-solving. Children may benefit from these components as they learn to manage their own emotions and social situations.  

Cultural Awareness and Diversity   

Diverse cultures, languages, and family patterns are being reflected in modern children’s programs. Children are exposed to diverse customs and viewpoints through shows like Elena of Avalor and Molly of Denali, which promote inclusivity and deepen their awareness of the world. These programs encourage tolerance and open-mindedness in young viewers by exposing them to a range of experiences and backgrounds.  

Encouragement of Creativity and Imagination   

Imagination and artistic expression can be fostered by the storytelling, music, and creative problem-solving emphasized in many children’s shows. Children may think creatively outside the screen, thanks to shows like Peppa Pig and Curious George, which promote curiosity, exploration, and imaginative play. 

child looking at a laptop
Image 2: Child looking at a laptop. Source: Yahoo! Images

Potential Negative Effects of Children’s Shows  

Screen Time and Passive Consumption   

Excessive screen time is one of the biggest issues with children’s television. Children between the ages of two and five should not spend more than an hour a day on high-quality screens. Long-term use of screens can lead to problems regulating concentration, sleep issues, and decreased physical activity. The advantages of educational programs may also be limited by passive consumption, in which kids watch without actively participating or absorbing the content.  

Behavioral Imitation and Aggression   

Fast-paced action scenes, exaggerated facial expressions, or even mild hostility are all part of the narrative of several children’s television programs. Although many shows aim to teach morality and problem-solving skills, some topics may unintentionally encourage impulsive action. According to studies, kids who often watch fast-paced, action-packed television may be more aggressive or have trouble controlling their impulses than kids who watch informative, slower-paced programs. 

Commercialization and Consumerism   

Extensive merchandising, ranging from toys and apparel to branded snacks, is associated with many well-known children’s programs. Early brand loyalty is fostered by the frequent appearance of characters from popular television series like Paw Patrol and Frozen on a variety of consumer goods. As children may form strong brand preferences as a result of media exposure, this may encourage imaginative play but also mayraise worries about materialism and the commercialization of childhood.  

Unrealistic Expectations and Stereotyping   

Even though they are entertaining, certain children’s television showscould encourage irrational expectations about relationships, achievement, and life. Certain programs may subtly reinforce preconceptions through gender-specific roles, idealized character depictions, or overstated problem resolutions. When it comes to helping kids think critically about what they watch and promoting conversations about the implications for real life, parents and other adults play an important part.  

The Role of Parents and Caregivers  

Given the possible advantages and disadvantages of children’s programming, parental participation is still crucial to maximizing the beneficial effects and reducing the negative ones. Sometips forconsuming media responsibly are:  

Co-Viewing and Discussion. Watching programs with children allows caregivers to explain concepts, answer questions, and reinforce positive messages. Discussing themes and moral lessons can deepen understanding and encourage critical thinking.  

Setting Limits on Screen Time. Establishing boundaries for television and digital device use ensures that children engage in a balanced mix of activities, including physical play, reading, and social interactions.  

Selecting High-Quality Content.Choosing age-appropriate, educationally enriching programs can enhance learning experiences. Platforms like PBS Kids and Sesame Workshop offer well-researched content that aligns with developmental needs.  

Encouraging Active Engagement.Rather than passive viewing, caregivers can promote active engagement by asking children about what they watched, encouraging them to reenact stories, or relating on-screen lessons to real-life situations.  

Conclusion  

Children’s television shows continue to significantly impact the behavior and development of young viewers. Excessive screen time and exposure to inappropriate content can be problematic, while well-designed programs can promote learning, creativity, and social-emotional development. Parents who actively participate and establish a balance between education and fun can help children benefit from media use in a constructive and developmentally appropriate way. Supporting the upcoming generation of young viewers will require constant research and careful content creation as technology and storytelling continue to advance.