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

The Toll of Iran’s Women‑Led Rights Movement: A Psychological Standpoint

Woman Life Freedom
Image 1: “Woman Life Freedom” The slogan highlights courage and persistence in the global struggle for equality and justice. Source: Adobe Stock #1657149359

On September 16, 2022, the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Jina Amini while in the custody of Iran’s morality police ignited a nationwide uprising. What began as protests over hijab enforcement evolved into a broader demand for freedom and justice under the slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom.” But beyond the political stakes, this movement has unleashed profound psychological consequences for individuals and society; it is a crisis at the intersection of human rights and mental health.

An Overview of the Crisis

Women in Iran began revolting after the death of 22-year-old Mahsa (Jina) Amini, who was arrested by the country’s “morality police” in September 2022 for allegedly wearing her hijab too loosely. Witnesses reported that she was beaten in custody, and she died shortly afterward, becoming a symbol of the everyday oppression that Iranian women face under strict mandatory hijab laws and decades of state surveillance, harassment, and punishment. Her death ignited widespread anger, leading women and girls to remove their hijabs, cut their hair, and protest the broader system of gender-based control. This outrage quickly expanded beyond Amini herself, sparking one of the largest protest movements in Iran’s recent history and drawing nationwide support.

The protests triggered by Amini’s death were among the largest Iran had seen in decades, spreading to more than 150 cities. State repression followed swiftly: reports indicate that security forces used lethal force, detained thousands, and committed acts of torture and sexual violence against protesters. A UN fact-finding mission later concluded that many of these violations may amount to crimes against humanity, including murder, imprisonment, torture, and persecution, particularly targeting women. Despite international outcry, accountability has been limited, and the psychological wounds continue to deepen.

The Weaponization of Psychiatry

One of the most chilling psychological tactics used by the Iranian regime against participants in the recent protests is the involuntary psychiatric hospitalization of dissenters. Authorities have publicly admitted that some student protesters were sent to “psychological institutes” during and after the protests, not for genuine mental illness, but as a tool to “re-educate” them.

In one particularly disturbing case, Ahoo Daryaei, a doctoral student who protested by partially removing her hijab in public, was reportedly forcefully disappeared and likely sent to a psychiatric hospital. Labeling protest behavior as “madness” isn’t just stigmatizing; it’s a deliberate form of repression rooted in misusing mental health institutions. Psychiatrists inside and outside Iran have condemned this practice as a gross violation of human rights.

Trauma, Anxiety, and Depression

The violence of the crackdown and the constant threat to safety have caused widespread psychological trauma. But even those not visibly injured describe deep emotional scars.

In interviews and counseling settings, psychologists report a surge in anxiety and depression among young women across Iran. A female psychotherapist described how girls in small towns, once relatively isolated, entered into a state of “heightened awareness” after Amini’s death, but also into frustration and internal conflict:

“This newfound awareness has disrupted their previous state of relative comfort … tension and conflict within their families have become an added burden …”

These emotional struggles are compounded by the fact that some girls feel guilty or disloyal to their families when they defy expectations, which is a significant psychological burden. On a broader level, the constant surveillance, repression, and societal division fuels pervasive fear. A published analysis of Iran’s protests noted that protest-related trauma is not just physical but deeply psychological, affecting individuals’ ability to trust, belong, and imagine a safer future.

Collective Psychology: Identity, Resilience & Social Change

Despite the repression, the movement has fostered powerful collective resilience and identity. Psychologically, protests like these are often rooted in social identity theory: people come together around a shared sense of injustice (in this case, gender-based oppression and state violence) and develop strong bonds that motivate collective action.

One manifestation of this is the growing refusal of women to wear the hijab, which is becoming seen as a normalized act of civil disobedience. This symbolic rejection has become a form of psychological resistance. Rather than waiting for external change, many Iranians are asserting internal agency and self-determination.

This quiet revolution isn’t risk-free. Protesters face brutality, arrest, and psychological harm. But for many, the act of defiance itself is a source of empowerment and a way to reshape their own sense of identity, purpose, and belonging in a context that so blatantly denies them autonomy.

Iranian woman protesting
Image 2: Iranian woman protesting. Source: Adobe Stock, Mumpitz, #543171718

Intergenerational Effects & the Future

The mental health impacts of the crackdown are likely to have long-term, intergenerational consequences. Children and teenagers exposed to violence, either directly or via their families, may carry trauma that affects their development, academic performance, and relationships. For some, the protests represent a break from generational patterns of silence or submission, but that break comes with a cost.

Moreover, the lack of institutional accountability, as documented by Human Rights Watch and the UN, compounds the trauma. Without justice or recognition, survivors may struggle to process their experiences, leading to lasting emotional scars. Yet, there is hope: the persistence of the movement, even in the face of brutal repression, suggests that for many Iranians, psychological healing and human-rights change are intertwined. The continued refusal to comply, the daily acts of resistance, and the communal memory of trauma may all serve as foundations for a future built on dignity and freedom.

Why This Is a Human Rights and Mental Health Crisis

From a human-rights perspective, what’s happening in Iran is not just political suppression, but also a systematic campaign of gendered persecution, psychological control, and enforced conformity. The UN mission concluded that many of the regime’s actions amounted to crimes against humanity, including persecution, torture, and sexual violence.

Psychologically, the use of psychiatric institutions to silence dissenters violates fundamental principles of autonomy and mental integrity. Even more, the widespread trauma threatens social cohesion, sense of identity, and collective well-being. The mental health crisis is not a side effect, it’s central to the human rights violations. Without addressing both the physical and psychological consequences, the wounds of this movement will remain unhealed, and the foundation for meaningful justice and reform will be unstable.

What Needs to Happen

Addressing this crisis requires coordinated action on multiple fronts. International accountability and support are essential, with bodies like the UN and international courts pressing for justice, accountability, and reparations for victims of repression, while countries with universal jurisdiction consider investigating human rights abuses, including psychological repression. Mental health infrastructure and aid must also be expanded, with support from international organizations to provide trauma counseling and remote psychosocial assistance to Iranians both inside and outside the country who lack safe access to care. Protecting dissenters from psychiatric abuse is critical; international psychiatry associations should condemn involuntary hospitalizations of protesters and provide clear guidelines for safeguarding patients’ rights, while diplomatic or economic pressure could be directed at institutions complicit in these abuses. Finally, empowering local and global solidarity is vital: amplifying the voices of Iranian activists, particularly women, and supporting cultural forms of resistance such as music, art, and storytelling can promote healing, identity formation, and collective resilience.

Conclusion

The “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement in Iran is more than a political uprising; it’s a psychological battleground. The regime’s brutal crackdown is not only a violation of bodily rights but of mental integrity. People are being traumatized, surveilled, pathologized, and denied justice. Yet in the face of repression, they are also cultivating a new collective identity, resilience, and purpose. Understanding this crisis through a psychological lens is essential. It reminds us that human rights are not abstract ideals; they are woven into our mental well-being, our capacity to heal, to resist, and to imagine a freer future.

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.

“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.

“Hidden in Plain Sight”: Child Sex Trafficking in Alabama

On a humid summer morning in 2025, investigators in Bibb County, Alabama, followed a tip to a property behind a small home in the city of Brent. They say they discovered an underground bunker that had been repurposed into a site of horrific abuse involving at least 10 children, ages 3 to 15. Seven individuals, some of them related to the victims, were arrested on charges that included human trafficking, rape, sexual torture, and kidnapping. The sheriff called it the worst case he had seen in three decades, and more arrests could still come as the investigation develops.

Adobe Stock. File #: 297986967; ‘Shadows in a dark black room.’ By Светлана Евграфова

Stories like this are shocking, but they are not isolated. Sex trafficking thrives in secrecy and shame, and it depends on community silence to survive. This post explains what sex trafficking is under federal and Alabama law, how recent state legislation increased penalties, what warning signs look like in everyday settings, and exactly how to report concerns safely.

What the Law Means by “Sex Trafficking”

Federal law (TVPA & 18 U.S.C. § 1591)

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) is the main federal law to fight human trafficking. It created programs to prevent trafficking, protect survivors, and prosecute traffickers. A key part of this law is 18 U.S.C. § 1591, which makes sex trafficking a serious federal crime. It says that anyone who recruits, transports, or profits from someone in sex trafficking, especially minors, or adults forced by fraud, threats, or coercion, can face very long prison sentences and hefty fines. The law focuses on both holding traffickers accountable and assisting survivors in rebuilding their lives. Importantly, force, fraud, or coercion does not need to be proven when the victim is under 18. That is the bright line of federal law: a child cannot consent to commercial sex.

Adobe Stock. File #: 298570791; ‘Stop child abuse. Human is not a product.’ By AtjananC.

Alabama makes human trafficking a serious crime under its criminal code.

  • First-degree trafficking (Ala. Code § 13A-6-152): This covers forcing someone into sexual servitude or exploiting a minor for sex.
  • Second-degree trafficking (Ala. Code § 13A-6-153): This includes recruiting, transporting, or making money from trafficking, even if the person isn’t directly exploiting the victim.

In April 2024, Alabama passed the “Sound of Freedom Act” (HB 42). This law increased penalties: if someone is convicted of first-degree trafficking involving a minor, they must receive a life sentence, making the punishment even stronger than the usual Class A felony.

Before HB 42, Alabama’s Class A felonies carried 10–99 years or life. The new law removes judicial discretion for minor-victim cases by requiring at least life imprisonment upon conviction for first-degree trafficking.

Adobe Stock; File #209721316; ‘Offender criminal locked in jail’. By methaphum

Why “Coercion” Isn’t Always What You Think

In the public imagination, trafficking looks like kidnapping by strangers. Sometimes it is. More often, it looks like grooming and manipulation by someone the child knows, an older “boyfriend,” a family member, a family acquaintance, someone who offers rides, cash, substances, or a place to crash. Under both federal and Alabama law, proof of force, fraud, or coercion is not required when the victim is under 18, because the law recognizes how easily minors can be exploited.

Where Sex Trafficking Hides—And the Red Flags

Trafficking can occur in short-term rentals, hotels, truck stops, private residences, and online (through social media, gaming platforms, and messaging apps). No community is immune – rural, suburban, and urban areas all see cases. You may notice a child who:

  • Is suddenly disengaged from school and activities
  • Has unexplained injuries
  • Has new “friends” and gifts
  • Has an adult who answers for them
  • Has restricted movement
  • Has signs of deprivation
  • Appears coached in what to say.
Adobe Stock: File #:176601576. Woman sitting on bed in room with light from window. By yupachingping

Educators, coaches, healthcare providers, youth pastors, and even neighbors are often the first to spot concerns. Alabama’s recent case in Bibb County proves that abuse networks can be family-linked and community-embedded, not organized by only outsiders. Trust your instincts; the law backs you up when you report in good faith.

If You See Something: How to Report in Alabama

  • Immediate danger? Call 911.
  • Children (under 18): In Alabama, make a report to your county Department of Human Resources (DHR) or local law enforcement. DHR maintains a county-by-county contact directory and guidance on how to report child abuse/neglect.
  • National Human Trafficking Hotline (24/7): 1-888-373-7888, text 233733 (BeFree), or chat online. Advocates provide confidential help and can connect callers to local services.

A note for mandated reporters:

Alabama’s mandated reporting law (Ala. Code § 26-14-3) requires many professionals, including teachers, healthcare workers, counselors, clergy, and others, to report suspected child abuse or neglect immediately. When in doubt, report; you do not have to prove trafficking to act.

What “Safe Harbor” Means for Children

Across the U.S., Safe Harbor policies aim to treat exploited minors as victims who need services, not as offenders. While states differ in how these protections are implemented, the core idea is consistent: a child who has been bought and sold should receive trauma-informed care and not face prosecution for acts stemming from exploitation. If you work with youth, be aware that Alabama’s human trafficking statutes align with this child-protection lens, and service providers can help navigate options.

A Real Case, Real Lessons

Return to Bibb County. According to reports, some victims in the alleged bunker case were kept underground, drugged, and “sold” to abusers; one suspect is accused of distributing child sexual abuse material. Community members later asked how this could have continued for years without intervention. The uncomfortable answer: it’s easy to miss what you’re not looking for, and it’s hard to report what you can’t imagine happening. That’s why awareness, clear reporting pathways, and strong laws all matter.

Adobe Stock: File #: 495335081 ‘Hidden in plain sight. Closeup shot of a beautiful young womans eye’. By Marco v.d Merwe/peopleimages.com

Practical Steps You Can Take This Week

  1. Save the Hotline: Put 1-888-373-7888 in your phone under “Human Trafficking Hotline.” Please share it with colleagues and students in age-appropriate ways.
  2. Know your local contact: Look up your county DHR reporting number and bookmark it. If you work in a school or clinic, post it in staff areas.
  3. Review indicators: Spend 10 minutes with DHS’s Blue Campaign indicators and guidance for identifying victims. Consider how these apply in your setting (classroom, clinic, church, etc.).
  4. Clarify your duty to report: If you’re a mandated reporter, review Alabama’s summary materials and your organization’s internal protocol to be prepared before a crisis.
  5. Combat myths: Remember, children cannot consent to commercial sex, and proof of force or violence is not required for a child sex trafficking case under federal law.

Bottom Line

Sex trafficking can surface anywhere—including small Alabama towns. Federal law treats any commercial sexual exploitation of a minor as trafficking, full stop; Alabama now backs that stance with one of the harshest penalties in the country when the victim is a child. Awareness is not enough unless it’s paired with action: see the signs, make the call, and let the system take care of the rest.

Adobe Express Stock Images. File #: 300469288; ‘IT’S TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT’. By New Africa

One In, One Out Mandate: How the UK and France Systematically Deny Claims to Asylum

In August this year, the UK and France began their trial of a One In, One Out Policy regarding migrants. While the current UK government champions this mandate as a way to tackle illegal immigration and assist more vulnerable populations, currently there is no plan in place to ensure those protections.

In this article, we will be examining the terms of the deal and the implications this has for immigration to the UK, the societal treatment of migrants, and the effect this policy can have on the lives and integration of migrants into the UK.

Policy Overview
Man holding a board with the French flag design and the words "Immigration Policy."
Source: Adobe Express. By STOATPHOTO, Asset ID# 1193060357

The current mandate, in effect as of August this year, deals with illegal immigration from France to the UK. As per this mandate, any immigrants who are caught going from France to the UK will be deported within 14 days of their claim being denied, and the UK will accept the same number of immigrants from France who have applied legally and fulfill other criteria.

Yvette Cooper, in her then position as Home Secretary for the UK, said in a letter that this initiative aims to dismantle smuggling operations. Smugglers can often extort large amounts of money from desperate migrants, and their methods of smuggling can be dangerous, unreliable and even contribute to human trafficking. The policy specifically targets immigration across the English channel, aiming to shut down smuggling via small boats. 

A catch of this policy is that the UK considers France a safe third country and can automatically deem asylum claims from migrants from France as inadmissible. With only a 14-day period from asylum claim denial to deportation, and limited access or knowledge of legal resources, this will make it virtually impossible for anyone coming from France to have their claim properly considered. 

Human Impact
Hands holding scraps of paper reading "Refugee" and "Asylum"
Source: Adobe Express. By nito, Asset ID# 106026480

While the Home Office said this initiative is primarily aimed to increase border security and fight smuggling operations, there is no plan currently in place to protect the most desperate and vulnerable immigrant populations.

Legal difficulties exist not just for the migrants who are deported out via this deal, but also for those who are accepted in. In order for a migrant to be eligible to be accepted to the UK under this policy, they are required to pass background checks that include proof of identification, such as a passport, and submitting a recent photograph. These may be insurmountable obstacles for refugees from war-torn regions or those fleeing the effects of devastating famines or other natural disasters. To hinge someone’s eligibility for asylum on meeting these requirements may violate Article 14 of the UDHR, which grants the right to seek asylum, because it does not consider their actual claims to asylum and immediately dismisses what could be an absolutely critical and legitimate case for entry. What is being presented as a fair and just deal targeting smuggling operations will end up preventing people from accessing refugee status in the UK. 

Legal Limbo
Yvette Cooper, current UK Secretary of State
Yvette Cooper, current Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for the UK. Source: Steve Eason

This deal is currently only in its trial phase until next year, and under its current limitations the cap is 50 people returned to France each week. At the beginning of August this year, more than 25,000 people had already arrived in the UK by crossing the English Channel in a small boat. As the UK hits its limit of deportees every week, another issue arises: what to do with those who are not returned to France.

For these individuals, their claim to asylum will likely still be denied. However, they will have to wait in detention centers for months while they are being processed. There are not many return agreements with other countries, so the UK has very few options for where to send these immigrants. Slow processes to attempt to return immigrants will result in long wait periods in detention centers, followed by even longer waiting periods in legal limbo if they’re released into communities.

Young women wearing hijabs hugging in city
Source: Adobe Express. By Cultura Creative, Asset ID# 518549413

Ultimately, this new mandate will impede people’s freedom of movement, deny what could be strong and legitimate claims for asylum, and create further obstacles for people seeking refuge from war-torn or dangerous regions. It is not a solution to the immigration problem, but it is the introduction of more hurdles that would-be immigrants must overcome as they seek inclusion in society, secure living and cultural acceptance.

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.

 

Who Gets to Decide? Prescription Laws, Public Health, and the Ethics of Medical Gatekeeping

In a world where people are expected to take responsibility for their health, the systems meant to support them too often stand in the way. Around the globe, and especially in the United States, access to essential medications is tightly controlled by prescription laws. These laws are often justified on the grounds of safety, but they also raise a pressing human rights concern: What happens when gatekeeping itself becomes a barrier to health, autonomy, and dignity?

This blog argues that prescription drug laws, as they currently function, too often violate the core principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). These include the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being (Article 25), the right to autonomy and freedom from arbitrary interference (Article 3 and 12), and the right to equal access to public services and protection (Article 21). By rethinking how access to medications is regulated, we can move toward a more equitable and compassionate model of care.

Prescription Control as a Barrier to Rights

At their best, prescription requirements aim to protect people from misuse, medical harm, and exploitation. But in practice, these laws create systemic barriers, particularly for marginalized communities, by requiring time, money, and proximity to healthcare providers simply to access medications that are safe, well understood, and often urgently needed.

This structure assumes that people cannot be trusted to manage their own care without professional oversight. But that assumption is increasingly at odds with both ethics and evidence. Many people understand the medications they rely on. They know the risks. Studies show that patients with chronic conditions often develop a high level of medication literacy and risk awareness through long-term use and counseling. And yet, they are asked to justify their needs to clinicians who may not share their urgency, or even their values. Prescription laws, in these cases, do more than inconvenience. They function as a form of medical disenfranchisement, denying individuals the right to act in their own best interest simply because they are not deemed qualified to make decisions for themselves.

Pretty sparkly pills
Image 1: An assortment of pills. Source: Yahoo Images

In the United States, prescription requirements are enforced through a legal and regulatory structure that delegates authority over medication access to licensed healthcare providers. The system is primarily governed by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) of 1938, which granted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to require certain drugs to be dispensed only by prescription. In 1951, the Durham-Humphrey Amendment formally distinguished between “prescription” (legend) drugs and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, mandating that certain medications could only be obtained with the written authorization of a licensed practitioner.

Today, the FDA, along with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and state medical boards, determines which medications require prescriptions. These typically include:

  • Drugs with a high potential for abuse or dependence, such as opioids 
  • Medications with significant side effects or narrow therapeutic windows, like warfarin or lithium
    • A narrow therapeutic window (or therapeutic index) means there is a small range between a drug’s effective dose and its toxic dose, making precise dosing essential to avoid under-treatment or dangerous side effects
  • Substances that require monitoring or diagnostic oversight, such as antidepressants, antibiotics, and hormonal therapies 

For a medication to transition from prescription-only to OTC, the manufacturer must submit a New Drug Application (NDA) with evidence that average consumers can safely use the drug without a clinician’s supervision. This review process is lengthy, costly, and highly restrictive. Even well-established medications often remain prescription-only due to regulatory or political reasons, rather than clinical necessity. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has advocated since 2012 for over-the-counter access to hormonal contraception due to its safety profile, yet access remains restricted in many states due to political and regulatory inertia.

While intended as safeguards, these laws impose significant barriers, especially for people in rural areas, uninsured individuals, undocumented immigrants, and those with chronic conditions who need long-term medication access.

Access Denied: Real-World Consequences

To illustrate how this plays out, consider two examples: insulin and oral contraceptives.

Insulin, a century-old medication essential for people with diabetes, remains locked behind prescription requirements in the United States. The result is tragic: according to the American Diabetes Association, 1 in 4 Americans with diabetes has rationed insulin due to cost or access barriers. Delayed prescriptions, expired scripts, and unnecessary office visits put lives at risk—not because insulin is inherently dangerous, but because the system around it is.

Insulin and injection supplies
Image 2: Insulin and injection supplies. Source: Yahoo Images

Now consider oral contraceptives. Major medical bodies like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the World Health Organization have long advocated for over-the-counter access to birth control, citing overwhelming evidence of safety and efficacy. Yet millions must still navigate clinical appointments, insurance requirements, or geographic isolation just to avoid an unintended pregnancy.

In both cases, prescription requirements do not enhance public safety—they undermine the right to health and self-determination. They increase cost, delay care, and disproportionately burden people with the fewest resources. These are not minor inefficiencies. They are rights violations with life-altering consequences.

Monthly birth control pills
Image 3: Monthly birth control pills. Source: Yahoo Images

The UDHR states in Article 25 that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including medical care and necessary social services. But health is not merely about access to care; it also includes freedom and agency.

As the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasizes, the right to health includes:

  • Availability: functioning healthcare services and medications
  • Accessibility: free from discrimination and within financial/physical reach
  • Acceptability: respectful of autonomy, culture, and identity
  • Quality: scientifically appropriate and safe

Prescription laws often fail all four. When a person cannot afford or reach a provider to refill their birth control, their care is not accessible. When a person is denied insulin because their script has expired, their treatment is not available. When gatekeeping assumes incompetence instead of encouraging informed decision-making, care becomes unacceptable in a rights-based framework.

Rethinking Risk, Rethinking Responsibility

None of this means all drugs should be available without limits. Medications with high risks of misuse, like opioids or antibiotics, require thoughtful regulation. However, the current system treats risk as a universal, rather than a spectrum. It places the burden of proof on patients rather than regulators and too often assumes incompetence by default.

We trust people to make countless risky decisions every day: driving, drinking, even refusing life-saving treatment. So why does buying an oral contraceptive or refilling a long-used insulin prescription require a professional sign-off?

A better model by human rights standards would be tiered and rights-conscious:

  • Expand over-the-counter and pharmacist-prescribed access for lower-risk, widely used medications
  • Increase public health education and harm reduction tools
  • Preserve professional guidance as an option, not an obstacle

This model would treat people not just as patients, but as rights-bearing agents.

A person made of medicine, consuming a pill.
Image 4: A person made of medicine, consuming a pill. Source: Yahoo Images.

Conclusion: The Right to Decide

Prescription drug laws were built with good intentions. However, when these laws block access, restrict autonomy, and exacerbate inequality, the human rights point of view holds that they must be reevaluated. Health is not just about surviving illness; it is also about having the freedom and support to shape one’s life. Access to medication is not simply a medical issue. It is a matter of freedom, equality, and dignity. The right to health also includes the right to decide. We don’t need to eliminate medical expertise, but, from a human rights perspective, we do need to stop making it the price of entry to healthcare.

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.

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.