Update on Luis Ramirez Killing.

Derrick Donchak, 18, Brandon Piekarsky, 16, and Colin Walsh, 17, have been charged in the beating death of Luis Ramirez in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania. Ramirez died on Monday from injuries sustained during the attack.

Almost a full week after Mexican migrant Luis Ramirez was beaten to death in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, charges have finally been brought against three suspects. The Republican Herald reports that two teenagers have been charged with criminal homicide and aggravated assault:

Two teens were charged with homicide in connection with the July 12 beating and subsequent death of Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala in Shenandoah. A third faces other charges related to the incident.

Brandon Piekarsky, 16 and Colin Walsh, 17, both of Shenandoah, are incarcerated in Schuylkill County Prison after being arraigned before Magisterial District Judge David A. Plachko, Port Carbon on Friday morning.

Piekarsky and Walsh are both charged with one count each of criminal homicide, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person, simple assault, and ethnic intimidation.”

Read the full aticle here.

Eyewitnesses say at least six boys took part in the beating that cost Ramirez his life, so I’m curious to see if any more people will be charged in this case. 

Why Is It Never a Hate Crime?

Luis Ramirez, a Mexican migrant, lies in a coma after being severely beaten by White teenagers in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania. The photo was taken just hours before Ramirez died from injuries sustained during the beating.

Over the weekend, 25-year-old Luis Ramirez was beaten to death by a group of White teenagers in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania. Ramirez, originally from Mexico, fell into a coma and died on Monday.

Ramirez’s fiancee Crystal Dillman told the Associated Press that Ramirez had often been insulted, including being called a “dirty Mexican.” A retired police officer who witnessed the beating said she heard one of the attackers tell a friend of Ramirez’s who was at the scene of the fight to tell her Mexican friends to get out of Shenandoa ”or you’re going to be laying next to him.” And two friends of Ramirez’s friends who were present at the scene of the fatal beating also ”said they heard the youths call Ramirez ’stupid Mexican’ and an ethnic slur.”

Nonetheless, local police are denying that the attack was a hate crime motivated by Ramirez’s race. Despite acknowledging that there were racial tensions between Shenandoah’s White population and the recently arrived Latino population—said to number approximately 10%—Police Chief Matthew Nestor had this to say about the attack that resulted in Ramirez’s death:

“From what we understand right now, it wasn’t racially motivated. This looks like a street fight that went wrong.”

I won’t pronounce on the attackers’ guilt or innocence, or whether or not they attacked Ramirez because he was not White. That’s for the courts to determine. I will however point out that in Jena, Louisiana, six Black boys were tried as adults for second-degree murder after they ganged up on a White student in a schoolyard fight. The victim in that case was treated for injuries to his face, eyes, and ears, and released from hospital that same day. But one of his attackers was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy.

To date, no charges have been brought against the young men who beat Luis Ramirez to death but I get the feeling that his attackers will get a very different treatment at the hands of the legal system. Local police are already indicating that they will not prosecute the case as a hate crime, a sentiment supported by Borough Manager Joseph Palubinsky, who said he did not think Ramirez was attacked because of his ethnicity:

I have reason to know the kids who were involved, the families who were involved, and I’ve never known them to harbor this type of feeling.”

This case has already proven that not every person who lives in this country gets equal protection under the law. The prosecution of these White teenagers will demonstrate whether everyone gets equal punishment.

In today’s globalized world, violence reverberates far beyond the locale in which it occured. For instance, an act of violence by Muslim extremists in London is met with a chorus of non-Muslim voices the world over demanding that moderate Muslims denounce the violence and reflect on why their religion is so violent. In a similar spirit, I want to appeal to moderate White people to denounce this extremist act of violence, reflect on why there is so much antipathy towards non-Whites within their communities, and begin to dialog about ways in which to stamp out these attitudes.

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

Some other bloggers have been following this case and denouncing the violent attack that killed Luis Ramirez:

Standing Firm: An Online Community for Immigrant Rights
DMI Blog: Politics, Policy, and the American Dream
Citizen Orange
Daily Kos
Latino Politics Blog

Justice for LaVena Johnson.

Private LaVena Johnson was killed in Iraq just eight weeks after she arrived. The Army ruled her death a suicide but evidence of physical trauma to her body led her family to call for further investigations of rape and murder.

In high school, LaVena Johnson was an honor student, a violinist, and a volunteer in her community. After graduating, she decided to put off college and enlist in the army, where she was assigned to be the weapons supply manager of the 129th Corps Support Battalion and deployed to Iraq. On July 19, 2005, just eight weeks after her arrival in Iraq, Private LaVena Johnson was killed. She was eight days away from her 20th birthday.

The Army initially told LaVena’s parents that she had “died of self-inflicted, non-combat injuries.” In other words, her death was accidental. However, after further investigation, the Army decided her death was a suicide. But her parents were not convinced. First off, her company commander described her as happy and emotionally and physically healthy. A phone conversation with LaVena the day before she was killed had given her mother, Linda Johnson, no inkling that she was unhappy, let alone suicidal. LaVena’s father, Dr. John Johnson, was even more troubled by the evidence of physical trauma to his daughter’s body, which he got from Army records and autopsy reports. LaVena’s face was battered; her nose was broken; she had two loose teeth; her lip was so badly cut it had to be sewn back together; her vagina had been burned with lye; and there was evidence that somebody had attempted to set her body on fire. None of this physical trauma was mentioned in the autopsy report.

LaVena’s parents cited other problems with the official version of their daughter’s death. For example, the bullet wound that was ruled as the cause of her death was on the left side of her head, even though LaVena was right-handed. The Army also reported that the wound was caused by a shot from her M-16 rifle, but her parents say it’s unlikely that Lavena, who was 5′1″ tall, could have shot herself with a 40-inch rifle. And, based on gunpowder residue tests conducted by a military laboratory, it is doubtful if LaVena even handled the weapon. Finally, according to photos obtained by Dr. Johnson of the crime scene, there was a trail of blood leading away from the contractor’s tent in which LaVena’s body was discovered, and there was a cot or stretcher between her body and the M-16 rifle that reportedly caused her death.

The Johnsons believe their daughter was raped and then murdered in an attempt to cover up the rape. Whoever broke LaVena’s nose, busted her lip, shot her in the head, poured lye into her vagina, and tried to set her body on fire is still on the loose. The Johnson’s have been trying to reopen the investigation into their daughter’s death and, after some initial obstacles, there’s finally some movement in their case. They’ve received help from veterans, journalists, and even a former diplomat. KMOV, a local Missouri TV station was the first major media outlet to cover the story. Since then, the Johnsons have also spoken to and received support from some Congressional representatives.

What makes this already horrible case even worse is that LaVena’s story does not appear to be a unique or isolated incident. Moue Magazine quotes a New Zealand Herald article stating that women soldiers in Iraq are often the victims of sexual violence, and Anne Wright—who’s also supporting the Johnson family—reports that “one in three women who join the US military will be sexually assaulted or raped by men in the military.”

The Battle for Hearts and Minds Rages on.

Reuters reports that US soldiers shot and killed the 17-year-old son of Hamad al-Qaisi, the governor of Northern Iraq’s Salahuddin Province. The killing took place during a raid on a family home, where the governor’s son was staying. One other relative of the governor’s was also killed and three people were wounded.

A US military statement says that an al-Qaeda financier was wounded and captured during the raid. The statement also explained the killing of the governor’s son thus:

As they entered the target building, coalition forces encountered two armed men. Perceiving hostile intent … they shot and killed the men. It was subsequently determined that the two … were related to the governor.”

But it seems there’s some uncertainty around the circumstances that resulted in the killings. According to the Boston Globe, Hussam—the governor’s son—was shot in the head, stomach, and shoulder while he slept. Hussam’s cousin, Uday Khalaf, was killed as he tried to enter Hussam’s room.

This is precisely the sort of thing that makes the battle for hearts and minds in Iraq an unwinnable one. The deputy governor of Salahuddin province reported at least two other attacks that followed the same pattern, accusing US soldiers of using excessive force when conducting raids. The attack was also condemned by the Salahuddin provincial council as an indication of “how the American forces disregard the souls of Iraqi citizens.”

If Iraqis get the sense that US soldiers don’t value their lives, it’s going to be pretty tough to win their hearts and minds. After all, what happens when US soldiers storm a house in search of al-Qaeda operatives? Regardless of who the soldiers are looking for, when they enter an Iraqi home, they’re going to encounter Iraqis. Whether or not they’re armed or affiliated with al-Qaeda doesn’t change the fact that they have friends, neighbors, and relatives who are not going to be happy when they are captured, wounded, or killed. And the killing of any Iraqi has the potential to alienate and radicalize countless others, whose deaths will only anger and radicalize even more Iraqis. It’s worse than a vicious cycle: It’s more like an avalance that picks up greater mass and momentum as it moves down the mountain!

In the short term, brute force might carry the day in Iraq. In the long run, though, it’s a losing game unless the intent is to kill everyone in Iraq. The other option, of course, is to withdraw US troops and put an end to this war.

Happy Birthday, Nelson!!

What’s wrong with me today? I almost forgot that it’s Nelson Mandela’s 90th birthday today!!!

Congratulations to you, Nelson Mandela, who have accomplished more in your life than most of us can ever dream of!!! You are truly an inspiration!!! If only more leaders can be like you . . ..

On a related note, congratulations on finally being removed from the US government’s terrorist watch list.

It’s a fitting present from our government.

Cocaine Aircraft Abandoned at Sierra Leone’s National Airport: Deja-Vu all Over Again?

Reuters reports that an aircraft carrying 700 kilos of cocaine was abandoned on the runway of Freetown’s Lungi Airport in the early hours of Sunday morning. The pilots reportedly fled after abandoning the airplane. Sierra Leonean authorities also found several assault rifles and ammunition on board the abandoned aircraft.

This is not the first time Sierra Leone has emerged as a destination for drugs. A year ago, I wrote a blog post after reading a Miami Herald story about the siezuere in Venezuela of a Sierra Leone–bound airplane carrying 2.5 tons of cocaine. Due to the increased policing of traditional drug routes into Europe, it seems West Africa is increasingly being used by international drug cartels as a conduit for their Europe-bound product. Makes sense to me. Lax border controls, spotty security at air- and seaports, and corrupt officials are vital ingredients for the international drug trade and and all are abundant in West Africa, including Sierra Leone. Major drug seizures have been carried out in Guinea-Bissau and Ghana as well. Yahoo News reports that the aircraft was marked with a fake Red Cross emblem.

Voice of America just reported that several people—among them the chief of airport police, the airport manager, and the control tower operator—have been arrested and are being questioned. Yahoo News also counts “three Colombians, two Mexicans, a Venezuelan national and a US citizen” among those arrested.

Apparently, President Koroma took the weapons found at the scene back to Freetown in his presidential vehicle. I can’t help but wonder, though, who gets to keep the cocaine.

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

UPDATE: Agence France Presse reports that 58 people, including many foreign nationals, have been detained in this case. Police investigations are ongoing.

And Now for Some Uplifiting News …

Beatrice Biira, whose fortunes were changed by the gift of a goat.

In a recent column, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof tells the unlikely story of Beatrice Biira, a Ugandan woman who just graduated from Connecticut College. Beatrice was born to rural peasants in western Uganda, and started school late because her parents were too poor to afford to pay for her studies. But the family’s fortunes changed when they received a goat donated through Heifer International by a group of children who belonged to Niantic Community Church in Connecticut. Despite being older than the other first-graders, Beatrice was committed to her studies and soon emerged as a top student. One thing led to another and Beatrice’s academic performace was rewarded with a scholarship to Connecticut College. She is the first person from her community to graduate from a university in the US. Beatrice’s story has been turned into a children’s book, and her story is featured on Heifer International’s website.

Over the last 50 or so years, the international community has committed and recommitted itself to economic development and the eradication of poverty in the developing world. Considering the persistence—indeed expansion—of extreme poverty, there is more than enough cause for pessimism with regard to the efficacy of conventional development and poverty eradication programs in Africa. Beatrice’s story is only one silver lining on a large and gloomy cloud, but it does show what can happen when a child is allowed to live up to her full potential.

Africa is home to millions of children who may never get a chance to go to school, to prove themselves academically, and to rise out of poverty. Time and again, education has proven to be a sure path out of poverty and, although the obstacles facing impoverished children are many and varied, Beatrice Biira is living proof of what can happen when a child is given a helping hand.

A Crash Course on How NOT to Win Hearts and Minds.

I just came across this video from the Winter Soldier 2008 conference, during which veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan gave testimony about crimes committed against civilians. Here’s an example:

There are many others on Youtube.

The videos pretty much speak for themselves. I fail to see how anybody can seriously believe that the US military is winning hearts and minds in Iraq. Every Iraqi killed has a family of people who love him/her and who will want vengeance. The cycle will only get more vicious. The US public may see the troops in Iraq as liberators but I doubt very many Iraqis see them as such. Not anymore.

Who Let this Pr*ck Into Sierra Leone?

It’s been a pretty exciting week here on T’ing ‘n Times. The fun began a week ago when I first wrote this post. It started out thus:

“Normally, I don’t blog about personal matters but this Canadian NGO staffer’s blog post got me so fired up I had to share! I clicked a link from Google alerts expecting to read something interesting or informative about Sierra Leone but what I found was disappointing at best. This guy, who’s in the country to “improve governance and overall quality of life for the people of Sierra Leone,” basically runs down a laundry list of things that are f*cked up about Sierra Leone, ending with this paragraph:

I’ve discovered more reasons for my friends and family to worry (hahahha): Don’t get caught in the middle of a “secret society” ceremony. They will initiate you on the spot. This may include crazy piercings and/or drinking animal fluids. What about the Kamajors? The psycho cannibal hunter tribe. Lucky for us, they sided with the peace forces during the war. They believe they possess magical powers. Bullets will pass through them causing no harm. They don’t discriminate either. You can you join the tribe if you make it through initiation, of which, the last phase includes being fired at by an old Russian semi automatic machine gun. [bold mine]

You can read the entire post, entitled Crazy Unknown African Viruses & Psycho Cannibalism here. Then please leave him a comment like I did:

Jason,

I’m Sierra Leonean and I find your attempt at humorously addressing the many challenges of life in Sierra Leone to be rather insensitive and demeaning. Not to mention ignorant. The Kamajors are not a tribe and—regardless of whether or not they practised cannibalism during the war—referring to them as “The psycho cannibal hunter tribe” is downright offensive, and it shows a stunning lack of knowledge about Sierra Leone.

I wonder if the Sierra Leoneans you encounter socially or professionally know about your attitudes. Or perhaps you only express your opinions when you and your expat do-gooder buddies get together.

Either way, I would have expected more from someone who claims to be in Sierra Leone to “improve governance and overall quality of life for the people of Sierra Leone.”

. . .

What you will read from this point on is a rewritten version of this post. I decided to change the text because I wrote the first version in a fit of anger and said many things in it that were insulting of the author, Jason Salituri, and his friends and family. In the ensuing week, I’ve had time to reflect on what I said and on the reaction it caused, and I’ve apologized personally to Jason and his family. I’m not proud of the language I used and the insinuations I made, but I won’t pretend that Jason’s post didn’t anger me or that I never wrote those words. Just to prove that I’m not trying to erase the evidence, you can read the original post as it first appeared here.

This, however, does not change the fact that Jason’s post was offensive to me. His characterization of Sierra Leone as a dirty and dangerous place populated by superstitious and cannibalistic people is offensive to me and other Sierra Leoneans, judging by some of the comments posted here, on Jason’s blog, and elsewhere on the web. So I’m going to take a second stab at addressing the post and explaining why it was so offensive.

Sierra Leone is where I was born and I still have a huge extended family there. I understand that Jason’s post was meant as an inside joke to his friends and family but the characterization was not much different from colonial-era European depictions of Africa. While the dirt and disease and cannibalism may be humorous to some, it doesn’t change the fact that Sierra Leone is home to our friends and families. The description of the Kamajors as a tribe of psycho-cannibals is offensive for obvious and aforementioned reasons so I won’t go back to that. Then there was the description of the initiation ceremonies, which are ancient and sacred rituals for a huge portion of the population—both urban and rural. One of Jason’s supporters who posted a comment under the name “newly” says s/he’s Catholic and so was offended by my mention of Catholicism in a prior post: it didn’t even take a joke about Catholic sacrament to offend him/her. Well, the initiation rites Jason makes fun of are as important to Sierra Leoneans as Catholic sacrament is to a Catholic like “newly,” so I can only hope that s/he and the other people who defended Jason on my blog can begin to understand why his post was so offensive.

I say I can only hope because the one thing that’s stood out most starkly in this whole back-and-forth is the total failure of Jason’s defenders to acknowledge that his post was indeed offensive, or to recognize that I was justified in taking offense to it. Instead, the comments focused on everything from personal attacks against me to reminders of the good work Jason is doing in Sierra Leone. Patrick Mosolf was the one commenter who came closest to acknowledging that the post was offensive, but he spends the bulk of his comment telling me how and why I overreacted. He then goes on to assure me that all White people are not racist, as if that’s what I was saying in the first place. Towards the end, he poses these questions: “Are all white people racist? Have you ever been outside of Sierra Leone and how many white people have you met? How do you know if someone is racist unless they make an overtly racist statement?” In my response to Patrick, I explained to him that I am in fact half White and I have spent over half of my life living outside Sierra Leone. So Patrick, rather than recognize my right to be offended, just assumes that my anger stems from an irrational and uninformed suspicion of all White people, thereby demonstrating that he totally missed the point of my original response to Jason’s post. And, for the record, I’m still working very hard on considering “This may include crazy piercings and/or drinking animal fluids” and “The psycho cannibal hunter tribe” as anything other than overtly racist statements.

The rest of the comments—excluding the respectful and considerate one from Jason’s dad—are even worse than Patrick’s. Kevin, who identifies himelf as Jason’s friend reminds me that Jason is doing good work in Sierra Leone and then asks me if my own “stereotypes” of do-gooders (read foreign NGO staff) doesn’t do equal harm. I fail to see how my ”stereotypes” could do more to tarnish the image of NGO staff than Jason’s defenders’ inability to acknowledge that his post is offensive. Then, in a display of what I can only interpret as macho posturing, Kevin invites me to visit his blog and “give him the same treatment,” as if I’m the guy who has nothing better to do than criticize NGO staffers’ blogs. Again, no acknowledgement that the post was offensive or that my response was in any way understandable. Similarly, ”newly” starts off calling me a hypocrite and then proceeds to dissect a couple of my top posts in an attempt to prove that I too am judgemental and prejudiced. But what both these commenters fail to acknowledge is that this is not a case of tit for tat. Jason’s post insulted me and I lashed out. Their retaliation to my lashing out is understandable to me—they’re his friends after all—but let’s not pretend that I had no cause to feel offended.

Through all this, one theme comes up again and again. Commenters remind me that Jason is a good guy working under difficult conditions in Sierra Leone. I don’t deny that. I know how things are in Sierra Leone and it’s not the easiest environment. Still, I don’t think that makes it OK for him to have said what he said. Certainly, freedom of speech is on his side, as it is on mine, but when offense is caused, it serves no-one to deny or ignore the fact. But that’s precisely what I got from BigJ, another defender of Jason’s who wrote, “I have spent enough time in Freetown pushing shit uphill (for which, read working to foster any level of, or even a feeling for, financial accountability in the Salone Government) to understand the man’s wish to say something. Laughing to keep from crying springs to mind.” I can understand the wish to laugh but why do so at the expense of the very people he’s trying to help? Psychiatrists help the mentally ill and special ed teachers help the learning disabled, but that doesn’t give them the right to make fun of their patients or students, does it? And if they’re caught doing so, shouldn’t we acknowledge that it’s insensitive of them to do so?

But clearly, none of the commenters who’ve posted comments supportive of Jason have admitted that his post was insensitive or shown any empathy for those of us who were offended by it. Instead, most of the posts have focused on criticizing me personally and on excusing Jason’s behavior: I’m judgemental and biased, I make stereotypes, conditions are hard in Sierra Leone, Jason’s making a great sacrifice to help Sierra Leoneans, etc. But that is not the point. Is there after all an inverse relationship between the wrongness of Jason’s post and my response to it or the difficulty of working in Sierra Leone? Does Jason’s post become less offensive because my response insulted his friends and family? I’m not proud of that fact but it doesn’t change the fact that other Sierra Leoneans who were offended by him didn’t write angry and vitriolic responses too, did they? It is certainly very telling that “newly” accuses me of insulting Jason’s friends and family but cannot recognize that Jason’s post was insulting to our friends and family in Sierra Leone. Those psycho cannibals and tribal initiators who pierce bodies and drink animal fluids are our friends and family too, and we have a right to be insulted when they are caricatured as they were in Jason’s post.

I’ve taken responsibility and apologized for offending Jason, his family, and his friends. It is, however, very telling that no-one on the other side of this issue has bothered to do the same. This fact alone says so much more than my post ever could have.

Ability is not Obligation: Being Able to Get Pregnant Does not Mean You Ought to

Teen pregnancy has been in the news a lot lately, it seems. First there was Juno, the oscar-winning movie about a pregnant teenage girl. Then 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears—younger sister of pop star/basketcase Brittany Spears—made waves when news broke of her out-of-wedlock bun in the oven. And on Friday, just one day after Jamie Lynn Spears had her baby, news came out that 17 pregnant teenagers in Gloucester, Massachusetts—all students at the same high school—had made a pact to get pregnant and have their children together. The pact was discovered after staff at the school clinic noticed an increase in the number of girls coming in for pregnancy tests and reported that some girls seemed disappointed when their tests came up negative.

So what is one to make of this case? Naturally, there’s the obligatory gaggle of Hollywood blamers, who say movies like Juno and Knocked Up trivialize pregnancy and make it seem like a frivolous, fun matter. These same people also blame the gossip mags for inappropriately and disproportionately glamorizing celebrity pregnacies, adoptions, and childbirths. This is to be expected since America has a tendency to seek easy scapegoats, with Hollywood and mass media being convenient and longstanding bêtes-noires. Let’s not forget that Marilyn Manson was blamed for the Columbine shootings and hip-hop has been blamed for everything from carjacking to drug use?

But I think there’s more at play here than the pop culture–haters are willing to delve into. No doubt, the decision to get pregnant shows these girls to be immature and emotionally underdeveloped, precisely the point made by Amanda Ireland, herself a teen mom and graduate of Gloucester High School: “They’re so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally. I try to explain it’s hard to feel loved when an infant is screaming to be fed at 3 a.m.” So it’s telling, and sad, that amidst the uproar of righteous indignation over this case, a teenage mom’s analysis is the most insightful and comes closest to addressing the deeper issues—low self-worth and a desire for affirmation—that may be at work here.

So, rather than blame the media, let’s look elsewhere; specifically, where these girls are from. Now, I’ve never been to Gloucester, Massachusetts, but from what I’ve read, it’s an economically depressed community with a majority Catholic population. I can’t speculate on these girls’ domestic situations but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that girls from stable, nurturing, and affirming environments do not choose to get pregnant before they are 16. I would be interested in hearing about how these girls felt about their lives, their futures, and their odds of getting out of their economically depressed communities, going to college, and getting a real shot at personal and professional success. In other words, I wish the conversation were focused more on the choices open to teenage girls in economically depressed communities with few avenues for escape.

Having never been to Gloucester, I can only speculate, which I’m fully prepared to do since I’m also a gambling man. I wager that these girls were not raised in homes or communities in which they were taught to value themselves or to make decisions that would benefit them in the future. I wager that these girls never saw themselves as college graduates or professionals. And I would wager that these girls considered pregnancy and motherhood to be worthy accomplishments that would win them attention and admiration. After all, these girls are, like all people, rational beings and—despite showing terrible judgement—we can only assume that some thinking must have taken place. Moreover, these girls were definitely not the first teenagers in their school or community to get pregnant. What is unusual is that they got together, talked about why they wanted to all be pregnant at the same time, and then went out and did it. And did it they did—one of the 17 was supposedly impregnated by a 24-year-old homeless guy! That shows determination and planning, and those are rational thought processes.

So, almost half a century after the social revolutions of the 1960s, it seems many American girls are still living beyond the reach of women’s liberation, the movement that declared that women were more than mere vessels for children and could, in fact, become anything they wanted to be. Somewhere along the way, American society failed to teach these 17 girls from Gloucester, Massachusetts that teen pregnancy and motherhood are not the only options open to them, just as it fails to deliver that message to thousands of girls all around the country. It is clear, though, that another message reached these girls. They saw teen pregnancy and motherhood as worthy and worthwhile goals, and they set out in pursuit of them. With limited educational and economic opportunities and an increasingly ”pro-family” state, is it any surprise then that the US has the highest teen pregnancy rates of any industrialized country? Should anyone really be surprised to learn that teen pregnancy is once again rising after a 14-year decline?

It really is too bad that nobody is telling American girls that a college education, a profession, and financial independence are also worthy goals—goals that they deserve and are fully capable of achieving. And it’s even worse that nobody is doing anything to make college a more affordable and thus attainable goal for all American teenagers.

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *   

UPDATE – To all the family-values people who blame sex education and contraception for teen pregnancy:

Pathways for Children CEO Sue Todd, whose organization runs the school’s on-site daycare center, told TIME on June 13 that its social worker had heard of the girls’ plan to get pregnant as early as last fall. She noted that some of the girls involved had been identified as being at risk of becoming a teen mother as early as sixth grade, when they began to request pregnancy tests in middle school. “What we’ve seen is the girls fit a certain profile,” Todd said. “They’re socially isolated, and they don’t have the support of their families.”

I seriously doubt these girls were getting sex education in sixth grade yet some of them were already exhibiting high-risk sexual behavior. Where’s the traditional family in this scenario?