By: Journal Staff

Mayor Brian M. Arrigo announced this week that the Revere Fire Department has been awarded a $1.1 Million SAFER Grant by the U.S. Department  Homeland Security.  The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant will help the fire department increase its compliment from 102 to 106 fire fighters in the current fiscal year.

“This is tremendous news,” said Mayor Brian M. Arrigo.  “We made it a priority in crafting the municipal budget to strengthen public safety at all levels, and this grant bodes well for the fire department.   This funding will help us continue to decrease the number of days that fire apparatus is out of service due to staffing issues.”

Mayor Arrigo cited fire department statistics that enumerate the downward trend of out-of-service days to a four-year low of 380 in 2017, a better than 50 per cent improvement from the earlier years.  The Mayor envisions a day soon where so-called “brown-outs” will be at a minimum.  “We’re hoping that toward the end of 2019, the Department will be at full compliment, and manpower shortages will no longer be a reason that apparatus will be out of service.  Brown-outs will be much more manageable as they will relate to training or apparatus maintenance, but not manpower.  This grant goes a long way toward helping us fulfill that goal.”

Fire Chief Chris Bright echoed the Mayor’s sentiments.  “We are currently budgeted for 106 firefighter positions, but long-term injuries and three pending retirements make this Grant especially important.   In September we’re hiring 7 new fire fighters, we’ve got seven more starting the fire academy in October and they should be ready for deployment by December.  Our goal is to make ‘brown-outs’ a rarity.”

Mayor Arrigo has his sights set on the full 106 fire-fighter force.  “The City’s Human Resources department is working now with the fire department to re-fill the reserve list and position us to reach the 106 figure.  That’s our goal, and we fully aim to accomplish that in the foreseeable future.”

“It’s a process,” said Chief Bright.  “There is a lag time in the hiring as we get candidates onto the reserve list, and then we need to get them into slots at the fire academy for training before they are ready for active fire duty.”

The Homeland Security SAFER Grant program was created to give fire departments support in meeting community needs.  “We are fortunate that our Congressional delegation, including Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren and Congresswoman Katherine Clark, appreciate the financial burdens that modern-day public safety imposes on communities.  Equipment is expensive, manpower is expensive, and communities strive to meet their needs.  Federal assistance such as the SAFER Grant program is invaluable.”

Chief Bright praised the members of his staff that prepared the detailed SAFER Grant application.  “They deserve a ‘shout out’” said the Chief, who singled out fire Captain Mike Bowden, his Administrative Assistant Paula Sarcia, and Sarah White, statistician with the Metro North Regional Emergency Communications Center.  “As you can imagine, the work in filling out the Grant application requires detail and documented support, and I can’t say enough about our team’s effort.  That’s the reason for our success.”

As the City continues to grow, Mayor Arrigo has persisted in his call for public safety enhancements.  “I share Chief Bright’s hope that the current feasibility study will clear the way for the City to bond for the demolition and reconstruction of the Alden A. Mills Fire Station in the Point of Pines.  Looking toward the future, the Revere will continue to seek the monies available in federal staffing grants.  We are blessed in Revere with dedicated and outstanding fire department geared for the demands of our growing city.  When public safety is a priority, and we can meet our expectations in public safety, then every resident of our City benefits.”

------

Original story here.

At 19, Jen was diagnosed with Lupus. She had to navigate her way into adulthood balancing doctors’ visits and frequent prescription refills. Jen knew health insurance was critical for managing her chronic disease, but never more so than when she became pregnant with her first child. Her diagnosis meant additional pre- and post-natal care to support the health of her baby. Fortunately, the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) guaranteed coverage for anyone with a pre-existing condition, like Lupus, required Jen’s health insurer to cover her and her child’s care.

Thanks to the ACA 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions can no longer be discriminated against when it comes to health care coverage. Despite this success, President Trump and Republican leadership on Capitol Hill have started taking an axe to this vital provision of the ACA. In June, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice would no longer defend coverage for pre-existing conditions in Texas v. United States, a court case brought by Republican-led states arguing that the guaranteed issue provision of the ACA is unconstitutional.

The Trump administration’s decision not to defend the law has a devastating effect: millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions could be unable to access health insurance. It could also sabotage the health care system as a whole.

Reacting to the administration’s announcement that they would not defend protections for those with pre-existing conditions, Matt Eyles, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) said, “Removing those provisions will result in renewed uncertainty in the individual market, create a patchwork of requirements in the states, cause rates to go even higher for older Americans and sicker patients, and make it challenging to introduce products and rates for 2019.”

As many as half of all Americans have an illness or condition that is considered a pre-existing condition by insurance companies. That’s one in every two Americans who rely on non-discriminatory care from their insurer to cover everything from asthma, to diabetes, to cancer, to mental health, to substance use disorder. For older Americans, the percentage is even higher: about 86 percent of Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 have at least one pre-existing condition, according to government estimates.

Yet another astounding fact is that prior to the ACA, being a woman was considered a pre-existing condition, allowing insurers to deny coverage to women or charge women more for coverage. A recent study found that nearly 68 million women and girls nationwide have a pre-existing condition, including the 6 million pregnancies that occur each year in the United States.

The reality is this that at one point or another we all experience a health scare and there is little planning that can prepare any of us for the heartache of a medical emergency. But what we can prevent is a family bankruptcy when someone gets sick. This risk is significantly reduced when health insurance providers can’t use our health conditions to prevent us from accessing care or charge us additional out-of-pocket expenses. But we can’t achieve this if the Trump administration and a Republican-led Congress continue to dismantle policies that are working for the American people.

Unfortunately, attacking Americans’ basic right to health care isn’t a new play for the Republican leadership. Just last summer, House Republicans voted to repeal the ACA in its entirety, but were stopped, thankfully, by the U.S. Senate. More recently, the Republican tax bill, a significant giveaway to the wealthiest corporations, added $2 trillion to our deficit. To balance the cost, my Republican colleagues are now proposing cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – benefits that hardworking Americans have earned.

Every American family should be able to access health insurance that is reliable and affordable. We must also lower prescription drug costs, lower premiums and deductibles, protect Medicare and Social Security, and defend coverage for pre-existing conditions. We know that the security of the American family starts with the ability to access affordable, quality health care, and I will never stop fighting until health care is a right for all, rather than a privilege for a few.

Katherine Clark is the U.S. representative for Massachusetts’ 5th congressional district.

-----

Original story here.

By: Lissandra Villa

Federal contractors working to reunite families separated at the border asked about the religious affiliation of at least two immigrant women seeking to get their children back, according to court documents and an attorney involved in one of the interviews.

The women, both currently living in the Boston area, were recently separated from their children under President Donald Trump’s “zero-tolerance” policy. Both of the women are asylum seekers, and one has already been reunited with her daughter.

Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark, who has been working with both mothers to reunite them with their children, told BuzzFeed News Friday that both women had been asked “what is your religion,” calling the question “outrageous.”

“Both of the families we’re working with are Christians,” Clark said. “But what if they weren’t? Are we saying now you can’t be reunified with your own child if you don’t share the religious preference of this particular vendor who runs these detainment centers for children?”

It’s not clear how widespread the practice of asking immigrant parents seeking to be reunited with their children about their religion is. The Administration for Children and Families, which oversees the office responsible for the separated children (the Office of Refugee Resettlement), didn’t respond to questions about whether it is a policy for ORR and its contractors to ask all immigrant parents about their religious affiliation or what the information is used for. The two federal contractors who housed the women’s children deferred questions to ORR. The executive director of the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), which has worked to help reunite families, also said he was not familiar with the issue.

But according to Clark, court documents filed on behalf of one of the women and an attorney for the other, the questions about religion came up during phone interviews with caseworkers responsible for determining whether the two mothers were suitable sponsors for their own kids.

Angelica Rebeca Gonzalez-Garcia was reunited with her daughter in Boston last week after more than 50 days apart. She filed a lawsuit last month to get her daughter back but dropped the case after they were reunited. A clip of Gonzalez-Garcia in tears while hugging her daughter and asking for forgiveness for leaving her alone has been played repeatedly on CNN.

Susan Church, who was on the team of attorneys representing Gonzalez-Garcia, told BuzzFeed News she was asked about Gonzalez-Garcias’ religion during an interview with a representative from Southwest Key, where Gonzalez-Garcias’ daughter was being held. Southwest Key is a nonprofit with a government contract from ORR to provide emergency shelter for children who have been separated from their parents.

Church said she spoke with the Southwest Key representative to complete an ORR “verbal questionnaire” on behalf of Gonzalez-Garcia, but said that it is usually done by the client.

“One of the very first questions I was asked on that second interview was, ‘what is her religion?’” Susan Church said. “I said Christian, but why does that matter?”

Church said they tried to clarify what type of Christianity Gonzalez-Garcia practices, but Church said she responded, “I don’t understand why that matters.” She described the official as a “bureaucrat” who was just “following the form” and didn’t have “any power over the situation.”

But Church noted, “I don’t have evidence that had the answer been Muslim that the child would not be returned to the mom.”

Clark declined to name the other woman she is working with because the mother has not yet been reunited with her son. But the mother has also filed a lawsuit in federal court asking that he be immediately released into her care. The court papers say they were separated at the end of May.

The woman, identified only as W.R. in her complaint, alleges in the case that in June she was instructed to fill out a “Family Reunification Packet” and was asked by a caseworker from BCFS, a Christian non-profit that serves as another government contractor, about her religious affiliation.

“The case worker’s very first question to W.R. was whether she is religious, and if so, what religion she practices,” according to the complaint. “The case worker then asked W.R. whether she was Christian and attended church and how often. W.R. replied that she is religious and attends church regularly, the case worker responded, ‘Great!.’”

The complaint says W.R. was then asked a range of questions by the caseworker, from her marital status to how she would “discipline” her son.

“W.R. answered all questions without objection, because she feared that any objection would jeopardize or further delay A.R.’s release,” the complaint states.

Clark pointed to BCFS’s website which lists attending a Christian church as a requirement for foster and adoptive parents. A BCFS spokesperson told BuzzFeed News that the family reunification process, including questions that are asked of parents, is all done “at the direction” of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

The spokesperson added that BCFS’s list of requirements (including the requirement that they attend a Christian church) is completely unrelated to the reunification process, which BCFS said it runs according to ORR's guidelines. The spokesperson referred all other questions to ORR, which did not comment on the religion question.

BuzzFeed News reached out to ACF, which runs ORR and falls under the Department of Health and Human Services, for comment on an extensive list of questions, including what the information about the women’s religion was being used for and for what reason the women were directed to specific vendors for fingerprints. “As a matter of policy, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services does not comment on matters related to pending litigation,” was the emailed response.

ORR is currently run by E. Scott Lloyd, a devout Catholic with a history of controversial statements on abortion and contraception. He has made headlines this year for preventing minors in immigration detention from getting abortions and has personally lobbied some minors not to get the procedure.

ORR had been using the process meant to place unaccompanied minors with sponsors in order to reunite parents with their children, which includes lengthy vetting. But on Tuesday a judge ruled that process couldn’t be used in these situations, calling it too time consuming.

Throughout the process of applying to be reunited with her child, W.R. was identified as the “sponsor” for her son, according to her lawsuit. The BCFS caseworker also referred to her as a “sponsor” during a phone interview, according to the court filing.

“We have to start treating these parents as parents,” Clark said. “We separated them from their children, and we have to do everything we can to bring them back together as quickly as possible. And asking a religious test to receive your own child back, are we saying that if you are not Christian you may not have your child returned to you? I find that shockingly — ‘inappropriate’ wouldn’t even begin to cover it — it’s just shocking that we would ask that question of parents.”

On Capitol Hill, several other Democrats told BuzzFeed News they had not heard about such questions being asked during the family reunification process, but raised concerns about asking families for their religious affiliation and the lack of transparency around the process of reuniting families more broadly.

“It’s not in the bounds of normal casework,” New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich told BuzzFeed News about questions concerning religion. “But this is why we need to do oversight hearings. This is why we need to actually understand what it is they’re doing and how they’re organizing it.”

Heinrich said he hadn’t heard of these questions until BuzzFeed News brought it to his attention but said the family separation situation “is all existing relatively in a blackbox.”

Sen. Kamala Harris told BuzzFeed News she wasn’t familiar with the religion question either, but called it “deeply disturbing.”

“We don’t make decisions about whether someone is a citizen, whether they enter the country, or — it’s called freedom of religion, it’s one of the basic tenants of our government and who we are as a country and the priorities we’ve created,” Harris said.

BuzzFeed News also asked Jonathan Ryan, the executive director of RAICES, about these questions, who also said he had not heard of them.

"There should be no religious test to reunification with these unaccompanied children. This is about families first and not about any kind of litmus test," Ryan told BuzzFeed News.

Clark offered an amendment Wednesday that would prohibit ORR or its contractors from asking any question related to religion as part of the assessment "for any potential sponsor or adoptive or foster parent” of an unaccompanied minor or during the process of reunifying a child with a parent.

In addition to the question about religious affiliation, Clark raised concerns that both women had been asked to travel long distances at their own expense to get fingerprinted in order to be reunited with their children.

According to her lawsuit, W.R. was told that in order to complete her reunification paperwork she would need to be fingerprinted at a specific location in Massachusetts, more than 50 miles away, before her reunification case could be evaluated. The lawsuit states W.R. offered to have fingerprints taken at a US Citizens and Immigration Services site in Boston, but was told that she could not go there.

Clark said Gonzalez-Garcia was also initially told to travel from where she now lives in the Boston area to a specific site in New Jersey for fingerprints and would have to bear the cost of the travel. Both women, the lawmaker added, had already had fingerprints taken at the border. Asked what the justification was for traveling to a specific site for the fingerprints, Clark said, “We could never get a clear answer on that.”

“Nobody can tell me where the policy is from. I’ve asked everyone,” Clark said. “Can you send me the policy that says these moms need to be re-fingerprinted even though … Border Patrol has them, and why we can’t be sharing that information to get this process moving? And nobody can point me to a policy, an email, a meeting, a phone conversation.”

“It is chaos,” Clark said. “And who’s paying the price for it are the children.”

------

Original story here.