Here’s a story about a white man wrongfully arrested–just to show that your skin color doesn’t immunize you from ill treatment by the police. It is also a lesson in why people are wrongfully treated by police: because they are poor.
It’s not just because they are minorities; it is also because they don’t have the money or social status to fight back. Poor people, as well as disapproved minorities, are targeted by the police.
It’s not because there is more crime among poor people (although the poor must commit crimes just to survive), but because they are easy targets. They don’t fight back, they don’t complain as much, and most importantly, they have been arrested before. The system actually creates the crime for which poor people are blamed.
The police, and the system, treat arrests the same as convictions: as prima facie evidence that the targeted individual is guilty. Although this may be statistically compelling, it is not proof, and more importantly, against the principle that everyone knows: “innocent until proven guilty.”
The system, in fact, treats everyone arrested as if they are already guilty. They are confined and abused just as if they had already been convicted. They are forced to pay large amounts of money (large, to them) to obtain their release. If they are released on bail, frequently there is no further punishment, since the case may be dismissed or never even go to court.
In a nutshell: this man was arrested– wrongfully– for “trespassing” on a city-owned housing project. He didn’t have the money to bail himself out or even to avoid the areas that the police were targeting for “stop and frisk.” When he arrived in court, the case was dismissed –no conviction–on condition that he not commit a crime for a year.
He was rearrested, four times, on warrants that would not disappear from the police’s database of warrants. In one of the four arrests, he spent several days on Riker’s Island before being released, summarily, by a judge. In another incident, he was taken to the hospital in shackles and later thrown out after being dragged forty feet by the shackles.
Finally, he filed suit, acting as his own lawyer, against the City for not erasing the warrants. It was not until he filed the suit that the warrant was removed from the database.
Though Bowen v. the City of New York is only one man’s story, the case happens to be moving through the courts as local law enforcement tries to reform the warrant system. The Police Department says there are now more than one million open criminal warrants, some dating back to the 1980’s. This month, the city started an initiative to issue summonses to — rather than arrest — offenders with warrants for quality-of-life crimes like littering, unreasonable noise and public urination. The Brooklyn district attorney’s office has undertaken a similar effort called Begin Again, through which defendants can close their pending warrants simply by showing up to acknowledge them.
via Cleared of a Crime but Hounded by a Warrant – The New York Times
I’m not going to editorialize — much more– about this case because it is so obvious. This man was repeatedly arrested and spent several days in jail on several occasions for no reason except that someone failed to perform the computer entries needed to erase a warrant that was wrongful in the first place.
Two middle-aged women were arrested in New Iberia, Louisiana, after a convenience store clerk accused them of stealing two hot dogs and two drinks. They protested that the surveillance video would show that they only used the microwave in the convenience store to heat up some soup that they had bought elsewhere. They were nonetheless jailed on $1500 bail, as neither the police nor the prosecutor could be bothered to look at the surveillance video.
The incident started for them when a policeman stopped them and told them of the accusation. He gave them a summons to appear in court to answer the misdemeanor charge. Since they were visiting New Iberia from Texas, 400 miles away, they could have ignored the summons. However, they took the time and trouble to return to court on the appointed day. When their case came up, they were asked to plead guilty or not guilty and another appearance was set for two months later.
Since they were from Texas, however, despite the fact that they had never been arrested before, the judge set their bail at $1500. Naturally, they did not have nor could they raise that money, so they were thrown in jail. The bail bondsman refused to offer them a bond because they were from out of state.
It was only five days later, after the incident was publicized in a local newspaper, that a lawyer who had never seen them offered to post the entire bail himself and represent them pro bono. If it had not been for this and several other offers prompted by the news, they would have been forced to wait in jail for two months to appear for this misdemeanor charge that could have been voided if anyone had bothered to review the surveillance video from the convenience store.
Is it necessary for me to mention that these two women were black and that Louisiana has the highest rate of incarceration of any state in the US or any country in the world? Is it necessary for me to repeat the polemic I just published an hour ago?
The only thing to add is that Louisiana has outsourced its jails to private industry, and now imprisons people for profit. The federal government sued Louisiana for its excessive rate of incarceration of black people, so the state government sent many of its prison inmates to local jails. The local governments then contracted with private companies to run their jails. The private companies pay the government for the privilege of imprisoning people and then is paid by the inmate.
This creates an incentive to jail more people, to which the companies respond by shuffling inmates from one parish to another as surpluses and deficits of prisoners occur. Empty cells cost the companies money, so they push the local government as well as the state to give them more prisoners.
The result is people imprisoned for trivial offenses or for no reason at all, awaiting trial with excessive bail. This is a gross human rights violation and it is visited on minorities and “people of color” (blacks, Hispanics, even Asians and Arabs) excessively. This situation approaches a police state if it doesn’t meet the definition already.
The New York Times (NYT) has reported that a postman who was delivering packages in the city was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. Certain facts about this arrest are undisputed: the postman had a package in his hand that he was trying to deliver when he was handcuffed, and the four plain-clothes policemen who arrested him took the package and left the postman’s delivery truck unattended on the street as they took him to the police station. It is unclear how long the postal vehicle was left unattended, but even a short period of time would be sufficient on this crowded street for anyone to help himself to the packages and mail in the truck. The postman was released after being cited, but his vehicle could have been stripped of everything it contained during the interval.
Another undisputed facet of this case is that the arrest was videotaped by a bystander and is included with the report. The video shows the policemen yelling at the postman “Stop resisting” and the mailman replying “I’m not resisting” while there is little or no movement by either the police or the postman. There are a number of bystanders in the video, some of them yelling at the policemen.
According to the postman, Glen Grays, he was backing out of his van when an unmarked car turned the corner at a high rate of speed, nearly hitting him. He reversed his course and stepped into the van, at the same time yelling at the driver. Instead of continuing on, the car reversed, backed up, and one of the four undercover policemen in the car told him, “We have the right of way because we’re policemen.” The car then stopped, all four got out, and as he tried to deliver the package he had been taking out of his van, they followed him to the doorway of the building and confronted him. This is where the video begins, as the policemen are trying to handcuff him.
What about the Mr. Gray’s conduct represents “disorderly conduct”? Is it the fact that he yelled at them for nearly hitting him? Or statements he made, or his behavior between the time of the near-collision and when the video begins? It is hard to believe that he could have done anything unlawful during that period of time. As one commenter pointed out, for a New Yorker to yell “Hey, I’m walking here” is a common and accepted verbal exchange in this city.
Another commenter, a former policeman, states that we should wait for the statements of the police involved before we “rush to judgement” about the situation shown in the video. In many cases, what has occurred before the video begins is essential to understand what is happening as the pictures unroll. However, in this case, it is hard to imagine what excuse the policemen involved could give, and easy to consider that whatever they say is likely to be a lie concocted to justify unjustifiable behavior.
The postman also stated that after he was put in the back of the unmarked car and it was driving away, without him in a seatbelt, the driver turned around, looked at him and made a “taunt”. As the driver was looking at him, he ran into the car in front of him, throwing the postman into the back of the front seat. It is difficult to imagine what excuse the policemen could give for this occurrence.
Is it necessary for me to mention that the postman was black and was delivering packages in an all-black neighborhood, while the undercover policemen were light-skinned, apparently “white”? Of course, when I say “black”, I mean African-American, dark-skinned, with Negroid facial features. I’m pointing this out because it conforms to and confirms a narrative that is played out every day all over America. The mere sight of a “black” person seems to drive some white people into a rage. Why?
I think the facts speak for themselves. This type of encounter between policemen and black Americans shows that prejudice and ill-treatment is endemic in America. How long will it take for the police and agents of the power structure to realize that their behavior is obviously inappropriate and contributes to resentment and hostility, from their victims and even by white people who reason and can perceive the true state of affairs? How long before they realize that their own behavior is driving the animosity that they so disparage?
There appears to be an attitude or state of mind among some white people that all black people are either displaying an attitude or thinking something which is unacceptable to them, to the extent that the very sight of a black person causes them to make disparaging statements and any encounter with a black person in which they fail to receive the expected deference causes them to strike out violently. This white attitude is difficult to understand or explain except as the result of conditioning from childhood by their parents and peers.
Because of the deeply ingrained nature of this white attitude, there is little chance of changing it except by exceptional, intensive experiences. In the absence of such an experience, the only recourse is laws that protect black people and other persecuted people (and there are many others who suffer) from discrimination in all its forms. Such laws are likely to be unpopular, but they are necessary, and in America, it will take action by the Supreme Court to see that they are enforced. In this regard, it is fortunate that Antonin Scalia has passed away, leaving the rest of the justices who have this same white attitude (Thomas and Roberts in particular) in the minority.
Prior to Scalia’s passing, the Supreme Court made a number of judgments which only reinforced this white attitude, including gutting the Voting Rights Act and trashing anti-discrimination laws. The situation now in the Court is similar to that after the Dred Scott decision in 1857, in which the Republican Party (no relation to today’s Republican Party) was forced to defend militarily the integrity of the federal government. Let us hope that the Supreme Court reforms, writes decisions that enforce anti-discrimination, and prevents another Civil War.
Humans have about 22,000 separate genes; each gene codes for a protein that functions as part of the body, whether as an enzyme, a hormone, or a part of the body’s structure. Single-celled organisms have fewer genes, and there are some organisms that have many more genes. No-one knows for sure how many of these genes are really needed, and it is possible that some could be removed without impairing our function.
How many genes are essential for survival as a single free-living organism? Less than 500. Scientists have built a free-living bacterium related to the Mycoplasma family that has only 473 genes. This report in Science News describes the research that led to the production of this synthetic Mycoplasma. The Mycoplasma mycoides bacterium that the scientists used as the starting point for this experiment had 901 genes. Of the 473 essential genes, they were unable to determine the exact function of 149; of these, some 79 are completely mysterious.
At first, the research tried to create a genome with only known genetic parts, but it didn’t work. Once they added the genes with uncertain functions, the cell began to work properly. Of the genes with known functions, there were four broad classes: those that kept the cell membrane intact, those that expressed information from the genome, those that ran the metabolism (breaking down “food” and obtaining energy ), and finally those that helped preserve the genome in one piece.
While this accomplishment is less than perfect (over 17% of the basic genes have unknown functions) it is nonetheless dramatic. The people responsible are the J. Craig Venter Institute in La Jolla, CA; this nonprofit foundation was started by Venter for the express purpose of studying genomes. According to their web site, the Institute was formed in 2006 from the merger of five separate research organizations. It has 250 scientists at two sites: Rockville, MD, and La Jolla CA. Dr. Venter was at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1991 when he started deciphering genes and discovered new tools for rapidly analyzing genomes. He started a group called The Institute for Genomic Research, a nonprofit dedicated to reading genomes. In 1995, the NIH team read the genome of Hemophilus influenzae, the first free-living organism to have its genome sequenced. The human genome was sequenced in 2001.
Now the group (and others) can focus on discovering the functions of the unknown genes, and more importantly, on discovering how multicellular organisms structure themselves through their genomes. The last fifty or sixty years have seen amazing advances in genetic research, from the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick to the sequencing of the human genome by Celera Genomics and the National Institutes of Health through the Human Genome Project. In the last fifteen years since the human genome was sequenced, research has continued apace, and the minimal synthetic organism is the latest product.
Sunset at about 7 PM Today
Drumpf (Trump) is a Loser
This comment struck me so hard that I couldn’t resist passing it on:
amboycharlie
Nagoya, Japan August 4, 2015
A friend, who is fairly astute about such things, pointed out that Donald Trump, had he put his inheritance in an index fund and done nothing more in business, would be worth 20 billion today, not somewhere between 4 and 9 billion. His father built the fortune and he is squandering it on hotels, casinos and golf courses, at a time when such such [sic] things are losing their appeal. So how does that make him a winner?
Here’s a controversial issue: if your two-year-old is so severely disabled that she will never walk, talk, read, or eat on her own, what should you do to keep her at home as long as possible? One radical treatment, detailed in a New York Times article, involves administering estrogen (regardless of the person’s gender) starting at the age of two or three until about age six to induce the epiphyses (growing ends) of the bones to close up prematurely, limiting their eventual “stature” (or length, since they will never stand.) Combined with calorie limitation to prevent obesity, ideally this treatment can result in an “adult” who is a foot shorter and half as heavy as normal.
In females, this therapy is usually combined with bilateral subcutaneous mastectomy (removal of the breast buds) and hysterectomy to prevent maturation of the sexual organs. In males, this surgery is unnecessary, but mastectomy may be performed for cosmetic reasons. The resulting medical dwarfism makes the patient much easier to handle for the parents, who are generally the full-time caregivers. Compared with picking up a patient who weighs over a hundred pounds, a fifty pound end weight makes it relatively simple to transfer the patient from bed to wheelchair and into and out of the bathtub. The contrast in size and portability is remarkable and saves tremendous effort in care-giving.
Besides the advantage in transportability, there is a sense that the child is more “cuddle-able.” The child seems more an object of affection or even a pet.
The most serious error that could result from this treatment would be the restriction of growth of someone who would eventually be ambulatory and able to care for themselves. This is relatively simple to avoid because the only patients considered for this treatment are profoundly, permanently disabled, usually with grossly shrunken brains and undeveloped visual and speech centers.
In the 1960’s, estrogen treatment was considered for a few normal girls who were predicted to grow to be “too tall.” This idea was abandoned after a few girls were treated, partially because the idea of being “too tall” fell out of favor. In the present time, girls who undergo precocious puberty are also not treated, partly because many of them are intellectually disabled and the early maturation limits their adult stature. Another group of those who undergo precocious puberty do so because they are relatively obese, and there seems to be a threshold weight of about a hundred pounds at which a girl will undergo puberty, regardless of age.
Another objection is the theoretical lack of medical justification for inducing premature epiphyseal closure. Many people, none of whom have had to care for a profoundly disabled, full-sized adult, object to the treatment on the grounds that it is “medically unnecessary” and violates the patient’s rights. In fact, the degree of moral objection to this treatment is dramatic and there are individuals who describe it with disgust as deeply inhumane.
The alternative, in many cases, is placing the person in an institution when he becomes too large to lift. Institutions are, first, unavailable, and second, grossly abusive warehouses when they can be found. Many parents would find institutionalizing their child unacceptable, and find themselves trapped with an adult-sized but totally dependent vegetable in their homes. They are forced to use lifting devices to remove the person from bed for placement in a wheelchair, or, even more difficult, to place the person in a bathtub or remove him after washing.
The response to moral objections is simply that the patient has no awareness of his or her individual size or physical configuration because he or she is so profoundly disabled. The advantages of smaller size are so great to the caregiver that they justify any theoretical impairment of the patient’s personal “space.” In fact, the idea that “bigger is better” and that increasing size represents maturation and eventual graduation to adult status is really backward thinking. In the business world, being taller is an advantage, but to a minimally self-aware, profoundly disabled person, size is likely to be a drawback.
A commenter responded to the article by describing her/his personal situation. He/she is an adult with severe autism who functions at an adult level in some situations but is unable to hold down a job because of regressive behavior in some circumstances. He/she states that it would be much preferable for social reasons if he/she were not five foot eleven inches tall and 170 pounds. If he/she were childlike in stature, he/she states that others would treat him/her like a child and not expect completely adult behavior. In other words, a childlike appearance would elicit childlike treatment from others. As it is, he/she states that the only people who he/she can relate to and be friendly with are other children and older adults, who are more tolerant.
For this reason, both self-image and management by others, it would be preferable for growth of severely disabled children to be greatly limited. There is no advantage for a profoundly disabled, nonambulatory person to be full-sized because the person is unable to stand up in the first place. Provided that patients are carefully evaluated for potential maturation and reversal of the profound disabilities noted in early childhood, there are many advantages to be had by limiting growth to a manageable size.
An article in the New York Times (NYT) describes the dysfunction of Louisiana’s court system thanks to Governor Bobby Jindal’s efforts to cut taxes and state services in order to look good for a run for the Republican Presidential nomination. A commenter mentions that there is a $2 billion hole in the state’s budget. As a result, infrastructure and all state services are being cut back. The worst affected is the criminal defender’s office, which exists to support the indigent defendant’s right to representation by a lawyer.
Indigent defendants are being told that they cannot have a trial date set because they there is no public defender available to represent them. For some, this means being in limbo indefinitely; for others, this means being in jail indefinitely because they cannot afford bail. The state has attempted to draft lawyers to be public defenders, but many of those picked have no criminal experience and make weak trial lawyers.
In Louisiana, unlike almost all other states, defender’s fees are paid out of collected court fines. Police have been writing fewer tickets and smaller fines are being assessed, but there are still more prisoners in Louisiana than any other state. Many defendants, for lack of a lawyer, have no court dates set. Some are at liberty, but others are imprisoned because they cannot pay excessive bails. Without lawyers, they cannot negotiate lower bails, so they sit in jail indefinitely.
Louisiana was rated in a Politico article recently as the lowest state in the country for quality of life. The state receives $1.78 for every dollar it pays in to the federal government, typical of Republican-controlled states, most of which do not pay enough in taxes to support the services that the federal government provides. In addition, state taxes are highly regressive: for example, the state sales tax is 10%. Meantime, the chemical industry is heavily represented in Louisiana, and pays little or nothing in taxes.
Here are some typical comments posted in response to this article:
Dallee of Florida: No right to speedy trial, one constitutional protection gone. No abiding by Miranda rights, right to self incrimination gone — did you notice that police interrogation was going on without counsel after charges were filed? Right to counsel in a felony denied, Gideon rights gone. Bail set seemingly without regard for community ties and likelihood of appearing on an adjourned date, so the bail standards are unreasonable. Court economics based on fines collected, a problematic system which lead to federal action in Ferguson. Hard to find anything going right in the criminal courts of Louisiana. Shameful.
We can ask, with sarcasm, whether the GOP sure does know how to run a government? No, it doesn’t and the rights of our citizens are being trampled into the ground and their lives destroyed. The Way of the Tea Party is a path to destruction.
infrederick of maryland: It is really simple. The sixth Amendment says they must get a speedy trial and the Supreme court has ruled that if they do not get one they must be released, with the charges dismissed with prejudice. Evidently Louisiana needs to have the Federal Courts tell them flatly: either pay the necessary costs to have a system of Justice so that defendants get a speedy trial with a competent attorney or they go free. Leave it up to Louisiana if they want to raise the needed revenue or not. However if they refuse to raise the more revenue to pay for trials, then they will have to prioritize which cases to try and let the rest go.
Chris Bradfield of Kansas: The poor lack the means to legal defend themselves across the nation.
Amend the laws to state that the government can not spend more the. The defense.
The state has unlimited resources to prosecute a person, who’s life is destroyed as they do not have unlimited resources to defend themselves.
This has become a nation where the justice you receive is based on the amount you can pay…Paying Attention of Portland, Oregon: This is one side of a very sad and troubling coin; endemic poverty. There is a lot of money in Louisiana, it is just not very evenly distributed. Moreover, the haves have extreme contempt for the have nots. The public education system is an abomination, there are few jobs available for the multitudes of unskilled and poorly educated potential workers and, in a pull yourself up by the bootstrap culture, the rich and the poor blame the poor for their failures.
In sum, it is a third world economy right here in the middle of the USA. And it is not unique to Louisiana. The anger, frustration and fear experienced by those the high tech global economy has left behind is what is fueling Trumpism. The number of voters who support Trump should be a HUUUUGGGEEE wake up call that it is time for some major socialist redistribution. Sanders will never win the election, but his ideas must take root. The accumulation of wealth by the top 5%, let alone the top 0.1%, is unsustainable and will lead to social disorder on a scale that will make Louisiana’s substantial problems look insignificant.
kalpal of Columbus OH: Once upon a time a few decades ago there were lawyers who practiced in storefronts and were funded by the government. Due to their successes at vanquishing evil slumlords and various other wealthy miscreants, their storefronts were shuttered and they were dismissed. After all why should the poor and disenfranchised be represented by willing and competent attorneys at the expense of the miscreants who created the poverty and disenfranchisement?
ccg of New Orleans: Being a Louisiana resident for the last 30 plus years, the real problem is that we just finished 8 years of suffering thru the worst governor in our history – Bobby Jindal. He was basically our George W. Bush in that Jindal followed the neoconservative playbook to a T – cut income taxes and raise sales taxes, give corporations anything they want, and slash all social programs and public services to the bone. Jindal left Louisiana last month with a $900 million hole in this fiscal year’s budget and $2 billion hole in next year’s budget. For a poor state like we are, that is a ton of debt. State colleges and universities have already been cut to the bone to where professors and students are leaving the state, public healthcare has been slashed after Jindal refused to take Obamacare dollars (the new Democratic governor took Obamacare his second day in office), and all law enforcement for the indigent has been decimated as this article describes. Same thing W did to the country and Gov. Brownback has done to Kansas. The worst part in La. now is the Republican controlled House is refusing to raise taxes so is trying to continued Jindal’s failed policies which may result in private hospitals refusing to treat indigent or even Medicaid patients and a new billion dollar LSU teaching hospital could be shuttered. Yet the GOP still cannot figure out why they can’t win presidential elections and their party is in shambles with a blatantly incompetent Trump about to be their leader.
winthropo muchaco of Durham, NC: The article doesn’t mention the fact that all the judges of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court were sued last year in federal court in New Orleans for using “court” fees they extort from indigent defendants upon pain of languishing indefinitely in jail to pay for as many 19 supplemental medical insurance policies for themselves.
One judge, Camille Buras, formerly chief judge of the court, had a pitifully lax punishment for her role in the scheme handed down by the judicial disciplinary committee of the Louisiana “Supreme” Court: she was required to publish an apology buried in the classified legal notices of the Times Pickyournose and agree to repay the monies she had scammed. Leave it to the Louisiana Supremes to make the characters in Confederacy of Dunces look like geniuses.
Judge Jerry Winsberg, quoted in the article, now retired from the Criminal District Court benefitted for many years from the scheme as well. Crocodile tears for Louisiana’s indigent defendants.
melissa: This story never mentions Gov. Jindal, whose disastrous anti-revenue crusade is behind Louisiana’s fiscal problems. From Eric Levitz, NY Magazine: “When Bobby Jindal moved into the governor’s mansion in 2008, he inherited a $1 billion surplus. When he moved out last year, Louisiana faced a $1.6 billion projected deficit. Part of that budgetary collapse can be put on the past year’s plummeting oil prices. The rest should be placed on Jindal passing the largest tax cut in the state’s history and then refusing to reverse course when the state’s biggest industry started tanking.”
PMJ of Lafayette, LA: Let’s not miss the lining here, which is tarnished but silver. I and other lawyers are devoting countless pro bono hours to the crisis. We were not ordered; we were asked, and we responded. While few of us have done significant criminal work, more experienced members of the bar are mentoring us. You don’t need to work in criminal courts long to know that there is a larger crisis here that goes beyond the justice system. A whole generation of lawyers here will see firsthand what they might otherwise never have experienced, namely, how the really poor live, and how the odds are stacked against them. Call me an unreasoning optimist, but I think it just might lead to progressive change.
Zika Virus Invades Puerto Rico
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Puerto Rico is about to experience an epidemic of Zika virus. A quarter of the population of the island will have Zika within the next year; eventually eighty percent of the 3.5 million residents will have been infected. Puerto Rico is a very dangerous spot for mosquito-borne infections because its sub-tropical climate is perfect for mosquitoes. There are also many people on the island who are exposed to mosquitoes due to lack of screening on windows and lack of air-conditioned spaces indoors. Most people living in Puerto Rico are poor and unable to afford any defenses against mosquitoes.
The New York Times, in the article cited above, states that thousands of workers needed to control mosquitoes have been laid off. In addition, the chemical used to fight adult mosquitoes no longer works, and the one used to attack larvae has been taken off the market. Nonetheless, the island’s health agencies have been doing their best to install screens in schools and clean up trash where standing pools of water can incubate mosquito larvae. Insecticide spraying has begun in many communities, although it is unlikely to be very effective.
Puerto Rico is in better shape than Brazil was because of the early warning that health officials have received. Only 249 confirmed cases of Zika virus have been reported so far, but officials believe many more cases have gone unreported. Workers are emphasizing protection of pregnant women, including wearing pants and using DEET insect repellent regularly. Putting screens on the windows in high schools can help because many girls in high school are already pregnant.
An agent in use since 1965 was discontinued by the manufacturer recently. The drug, temephos, is effective against mosquito larvae, but it didn’t have sufficient safety data on hand according to the Environmental Protection Agency. When the testing, which would cost $3 million, was demanded, the company that makes it decided to simply stop making it. Apparently the profit from making the drug wasn’t sufficient to justify the testing. There is still a nine month supply on hand in Puerto Rico, and the EPA could issue an emergency decree to make more.
The other problem besides mosquitoes is that Zika is transmitted sexually, and distribution of condoms is being tried to help block this method of spread. However, most islanders are Catholic, and the Church prohibits the use of “artificial” birth control methods. Instead, the Church has told its members to practice self-restraint. This is a particular problem because even pregnant women need to be protected from sexual transmission with condoms.
