Update on Mental Health Story

My response from Color of Change:

Natasha, Feb-03 11:54 am (PST):

Dear Michelle,

Thank you for your note. We sincerely apologize for our careless characterization of people with mental illnesses. You're right -- we didn't intend to imply that all people with mental illnesses are dangerous or irresponsible.

The law in question provides that mental health professionals who believe their clients to be a danger to themselves or others can report names to the national background check database. It does NOT prohibit everyone diagnosed with a mental illness from owning a gun.

Sincerely,
Natasha L. S...
ColorOfChange.org

I appreciated receiving this response as I have a lot of respect for those who take the time to write back.

Read the initial story here.

Until next time,

Elle

The Stigma of Mental Illness and its Role in the Current Gun Control Debate

I received a message today from ColorOfChange.org asking me to sign a petition to Congress in support of stricter gun control laws prohibiting certain groups of people from being allowed to purchase firearms.  I feel as though the statement I was asked to support was offensive in light of the tone it took.  While I support responsible gun control regulations, I hope that the debate for and against them can avoid relying on sweeping statements that suggest that all those with mental illnesses have a propensity for violence and recognize that there is a real stigma stemming from that which serves to keep people from seeking help.  I'll copy and paste the ColorOfChange position and my response.  I'll be surprised if I receive a favorable response from them or from those who read this post, but I would like to share my view with you anyway.

The email:


Earlier this month we witnessed a tragic shooting in Tucson, AZ, leaving 6 dead, and 20 others — including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords — injured. While rhetoric from the far-fight that feeds distrust and hatred towards our politicians (especially among the mentally ill) needs to be called out and countered, another factor jumps out. Someone like Jared Lee Loughner should never have been able to buy a gun.

We already have laws that make it illegal for criminals and the mentally ill to purchase guns. But a broken background check system and wide enforcement loopholes -- kept in place by the gun lobby and the National Rifle Association (NRA) -- have made it difficult to keep guns out of the wrong hands. It's time to close these gaps once and for all. You can help.

Please join us, along with Mayors Against Illegal Guns and others, in making it clear to politicians that everyday Americans support common sense reform and will stand with them if they lead in keeping guns from the most dangerous among us; and please ask your friends and family to join as well. It takes just a moment:

http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/guns/

Two commonsense reforms could prevent future tragedies. First, we should ensure that all the names of people who should be prohibited from buying a gun are entered into the background check system. Then we must close the loopholes that allow people to purchase guns with no background check at all. It sounds easy — but the powerful gun lobby, led by the NRA, has stood in opposition.

The attempted assassination of a member of Congress has frightening implications for our political culture that we should take very seriously. But we should also take this moment to remember that dozens of ordinary people are murdered with guns every day.

It’s a problem that everyone should care about solving — but it disproportionately affects Black, poor, and other disadvantaged communities. Black men are 9 times more likely than white men to be murdered with guns. In too many Black communities across the country, gun violence is a constant danger.

The danger is fueled by the easy availability of guns for those who are legally prohibited from possessing them. And it is so easy for dangerous people to puchase guns because of deep flaws in the systems meant to prevent this from ever occurring. One problem is that those who should be prohibited from buying guns, such as felons and the mentally ill, don’t always make it into the federal background check database. That means gun stores who are trying to follow the law may inadvertently sell guns to dangerous people.

But perhaps more troubling, there are huge loopholes in the law that allow people to bypass background checks altogether. For instance, in the well-known “gun show loophole,” anyone can purchase deadly automatic weapons — weapons designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible — from a gun show with no background check whatsoever.

If any lesson is to be taken from the tragic events in Tucson, it is that these gaps can have deadly consequences. Now, with growing public support for change, there is a unique opportunity to strengthen America’s gun laws to keep these weapons out of the wrong hands.

Please stand with us and our partners at Mayors Against Illegal Guns in asking Congress to do just that. And when you do, please ask your friends and family to do the same.

http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/guns/

Thanks and Peace,

-- James, Gabriel, William, Dani, Natasha and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
   January 25th, 2011

The petition text:

Earlier this month a tragic shooting in Tucson, AZ targeting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords killed six people and injured 20. The senseless attack left us grappling with many questions, but one thing is very clear: Whatever you believe about gun laws, we should all be able to agree that we should do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

Unfortunately, a broken system of background checks and wide enforcement loopholes make it difficult to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Please join us, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and others in calling on Congressional leaders to enact reforms now:

Below is the message we'll send to Congress on your behalf:

Dear Representative / Senator,

In the wake of the recent shootings in Tucson, I was upset to learn that Congress has long tolerated wide loopholes in the laws meant to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, drug abusers, the mentally ill and other dangerous people.  I'm calling on you to immediately close these gaps by taking two critical steps:

1) Get all the names of people who should be prohibited from buying a gun into the background check system.

2) Close the loopholes in the background check system.

Without taking these steps, the gun control laws intended to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals are rendered practically meaningless.  Because Jared Lee Loughner wasn't placed in the database for a previous drug conviction, he was able to purchase the gun he used to target Congresswoman Giffords, kill six, and wound 20.

That is to say nothing of the 34 Americans each day who are murdered with guns -- many of which have not been legally obtained.  We can't accept the flaws in our background check system that lead to these tragic deaths.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

My response: 

While I have generally felt comfortable supporting ColorOfChange causes in the past, I was very disappointed in the last email message you asked me to send to Congress regarding the Tuscon shootings. This is a quote from your form letter/message that you planned to send to Congress on my behalf: "In the wake of the recent shootings in Tucson, I was upset to learn that Congress has long tolerated wide loopholes in the laws meant to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, drug abusers, the mentally ill and other dangerous people." I just want to take a few minutes of your time to explain why I found this statement to be particularly disturbing and why I could not put my name on the petition.

You have no reason to know this, but I myself am "mentally ill.” (Actually I prefer to be referred to as a person with mental illness, as my illness does not define me any more than diabetes would define a person with diabetes.) I have no desire to own a gun at this point in my life, but I believe that I am capable of being a responsible gun owner if I so choose, in spite of my mental illness. I am one of those productive, peaceful, “everyday Americans” you mentioned in your email message promoting this petition. I've been able to hold onto a great job in spite of my health condition and have very positive relationships with my coworkers and supervisors. I enjoy the company of friends and family who love and support me and I participate actively in efforts to better my community. By all means, I have been able to manage my condition and live a full, rich life.

It concerns me greatly that your form letter lumps "the mentally ill" in with "criminals, drug abusers...and other dangerous people." Perhaps you did not mean to, but your statement quite unambiguously equates having a mental illness with being a dangerous person. I would certainly reject any insinuation that I am a dangerous or violent person. As I'm sure you agree, the mere instance of mental illness in a person does not make that person dangerous. I'm sure you also acknowledge that the majority of violent crimes committed in this country are committed by individuals who do not suffer from any mental illness. In fact, those with severe mental illnesses are significantly more likely to be raped, robbed, or otherwise violently victimized than the rest of the general population.

So perhaps when you said "mentally ill" you really meant “a person with a destabilizing mental health condition who has a propensity for violent behavior as determined by a mental health professional.” I can agree that there should be a process by which those individuals are flagged for the purposes of gun ownership background checks. However that's not the way your petition is written. It suggests that all or many of those with mental illness are somehow dangerous and a threat and, unfortunately, the letter does not go on to provide any qualifications to suggest that this is not a sweeping statement. Again, I support gun control but I do not believe that an instance of mental illness should be an automatic exclusion from gun ownership.

You may ask me why this wording matters so much to me and you may even feel as though I am nitpicking. As someone who regularly deals with the stigma of mental illness, I can assure you I am not. There is a significant amount of shame and ridicule associated with mental illness in this country and it makes people feel like they can't reach out for help and treatment without it negatively impacting their jobs, social life, and family relationships. This is a vicious cycle that can lead to worsening of a person's symptoms and diminish their quality of life. Wording is important and when certain ideas become a regular part of the way we use language, it can have a damaging effect. I believe that the wording you used here is a reflection of this stigma and has the very real effect of perpetuating the shame associated with mental illness in our country at a time when I hope that your intent is the opposite.

Again, as a person that believes in effective gun control and agrees with the idea of requiring extensive screenings prior to gun purchases, I agree with the general sentiment of your comments. However, as a person who knows what it's like to be stigmatized, I implore you to choose your words more carefully in the future. I hope that you understand how this type of wording is hurtful. I implore you to consult the NAMI website from information about the stigma of mental illness.

Thank you for your time.

I welcome your thoughts.

Until next time,

Elle

Artic Love, President Obama, and the Sierra Club

I've got one more week exactly until I take the LSAT.  In fact, in a week's time I'll already be in the middle of the first section of the test.  In spite of my furious practice, I do take time in the mornings to check my email.  I got this cute one from the Sierra Club so I thought I'd share the video with you.  Hope it makes you smile:



If you want to electronically sign the card to President Obama about this issue, you can do so here.

Until next time,
Elle

Sierra Club - Protect Local Communities from Toxic Coal Ash

Environmental issues are near and dear to my heart.  I was an activist for Greenpeace and for the NC Conservation Network both on and offline, but have had to curb my involvement this year due to other priorities.  Somehow I found myself on a different Sierra Club email list than I've been on in the past and this one gives supporters ways to participate in online campaigns.  As I discussed at length a couple of weeks ago, I'm very involved in online campaigns now because they are a non-time consuming way to contact legislative and other government figures about the issues that matter to me.

This online letter campaign is directed at the EPA.  They are considering public opinion on federal regulations for toxic coal ash, and as usual, coal lobbyists are hitting them hard to not pass these needed regs.  I adapted the text of the letter and sent it off this afternooon:

I appreciate this opportunity for public comment on the proposal for new federally enforceable standards surrounding coal ash disposal.  I am sure that you are receiving a lot of push back from the coal industry, but here is my point of view as a private American citizen with no ties to the industry.

First, thank you for recognizing the serious problems posed by toxic coal ash left from the burning of coal. Communities across the country are exposed to heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and mercury seeping from ash storage sites into our drinking water, rivers and streams. The result -- increased risk of cancer, learning disabilities, birth defects and other illnesses.

As you well know, coal ash is hazardous but less strictly controlled than household garbage. The EPA must adopt enforceable federal safeguards, not suggested guidelines for states, to protect our communities.  This citizen stands behind your efforts to do just that.

If the BP oil disaster and the Tennessee coal ash tragedy taught us anything, it's that we can't just take the polluter's word for it anymore. I urge you to stand up to industry pressure and issue strong, federally enforceable safeguards quickly under Subtitle C to protect communities from toxic coal ash. Continuing to ignore scientific and safety concerns comes at a high cost to our families, communities and economy.  I trust that the EPA will be able to do the right thing by Americans and enact these safeguards.

Thank you very much for your time and the opportunity to share my concerns.


If you're interested in sharing your support for these regulations or even just learning more about this issue (which I encourage you to do before you sign on to anything), please check out this link: Sierra Club Coal Ash Rule Resources.  Educate yourself and then click the Take Action tab if you want to send a letter.

Until next time,
Elle

P.S. For those friends who have been following my weight loss journey, I have lost 15 pounds.  I do not look or feel any smaller but I am very encouraged by the results.  More to come on that whenever I take another break from the books. ;)

Letter to Congress: Support NPR not Extremists

I write letters or sign petitions all the time about issues that are important to me.  I'm on the email list for the NC Conservation Network, Planned Parenthood, both of our nation's main political parties, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, HRC, and several others.  In the past I've done some volunteering and protesting with Greenpeace and participated some in the 2008 Obama/Biden campaign, and more recently my county's Progressive Democrats group.  I wanted to get more involved in this year's elections, but I decided that studying for the LSAT so that I can meet my short-term goal of getting into law school starting in 2011 had to take precedence over everything else.

I'll be honest - in a way that makes me feel like an ideological hypocrite.  Let me explain.  I publicize issues I care about by emailing my representatives and sharing articles and petitions via Facebook and Twitter, but I'm not out canvassing, donating vast sums of money, or rallying for sanity.  I guess I really shouldn't beat myself up - I'm not really a part of the oft-criticized social media crowd that allegedly only cares about issues enough to sign up for a "if 1 million people join this, I will..." Facebook group and never think about them again.  I can't find the article I read criticizing this online phenomenon, but here's a rather popular article that sparked a lot of response (mostly from people disagreeing with the writer's claims that online activism isn't really a solution): http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell.  I don't think that anyone should try to minimize the impact that writing to your elected officials can have, so I'm trying to get over my misplaced guilt.

While I definitely feel conflicted about online activism and while I really wish I had the time, money, and ability to do more, I will never stop standing up for what I believe in.  I will continue to promote issues I think are important via my Facebook profile, Twitter, and any other social media I deem appropriate.  I will continue to write my legislators, both in state and in Washington, to let them know where one of their constituents stands on the issues.  I will never stop emailing officials, political organizations, religious groups, and outspoken bigots like Focus on the Family regardless of where they are located if their actions and ideological stances are bad for our country.  I will sign petitions in favor of net neutrality, comprehensive bullying education and sex education in public schools, the protection of benefits like unemployment insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare that mean so much to the low-income clients I serve at my job every day, and legislation that requires insurance companies to provide women coverage for any type of prescription birth control they may want or need.

I thought it might be an interesting experiment to save the messages that I send online about these issues.  I'm going to try and remember to add to the blog the text of the emails and letters I send as another way to promote awareness and spark discussion.  I hope you'll provide me with your feedback on some or all of them.  I sometimes (but not nearly as often as I should) get responses from the people to whom I write.  I have to put in a good word here for Senator Richard Burr, R-NC for being the only politician that has consistently responded to my concerns in writing, even though we quite often disagree on the issues.  I respect and appreciate that so when I can I'll try to post any responses I receive.

Okay so, that was a rather long segue into my first blog post documenting a emailed letter/petition signature I sent to Congress.  The issue is regarding the call to action by Senator Jim Demint, R-SC and former Governor Sarah Palin to end federal funding for NPR.  If you're not familiar with the Juan Williams situation, you can find more information via Google - there are articles galore.  For an insider's perspective, check out this NPR employee's post.  I first heard about the controversy via email from both Free Press Action Fund and Credo Action.  Here is the petition I signed and the one from Credo.  The text of my message is below:

I rely on NPR to provide me with news and political commentary. I don't know where I'd be without them. I grew up listening to Car Talk on Saturday mornings with my father and news during the week when he took me to school. In college, I used to listen to NPR stations to have stimulating classical music to listen to while I studied. Now as a professional adult, I listen to NPR to get my news and stay updated on current events that matter to our nation. My almost 23 year love affair with public radio is just one of many stories, but I share it with you to let you know what a broad and diverse impact public radio has. Even though my needs have changed over the years, NPR has always been there for me to meet them.

Public radio is extremely important to me and to millions of Americans. I understand that some are upset over the recent firing of Juan Williams. I am not going to support or disparage that action. I will say that I do not see that firing someone for perceived bigotry is an offense that should be punished with decreased funding.

Public radio relies on the funds you are considering eliminating in order to function and bring the news, music, political commentary, and entertainment to 30 million Americans across our great nation. Please do not let political pontification at election time cause you to rashly eliminate funding that NPR needs to continue functioning at its current level. Stand up for what's right and defend the public's right to have access to public radio.

Thank you very much for your time.

Some people are arguing that even if this funding cut does happen, NPR won't be affected all that much.  I'm not willing to take that chance.  Please let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Until next time,
Elle