The US government doesn’t care about children’s welfare
Filed under: public health, social change, youth | Tags: alternatives, budget, childhood obesity, children's welfare, drugs, education, funding, future, government, health, investment, No Child Left Behind, nutrition, physical education, policy, priorities, sex education, social programs, teen pregnancy, US government, values, youth |
Res ipsa loquitur: Latin for the thing speaks for itself and also known as a different way of saying than actions speak louder than words. Cliches like that exist because they tend to be true. If you look at government programs targeted for children and youth in American society, there is no exception. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) purports to give each child access to a quality education. In reality, it forces school closures, subjects students to needless high-stakes testing, and actually lowers the quality of education.
The video below is a preview of a new HBO documentary into NCLB’s impact in one inner-city school.
Comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence-only education might have prevented 17 students in Massachusetts from becoming mothers before their 18th birthday. Childhood obesity continues to compromise the health of children, putting them at risk for heart disease, Type II diabetes and other disorders. However, many schools continue to serve unhealthy foods during lunch and keep the vending machines stocked with sugar-laden snacks and beverages. School systems have continued to cut back or virtually eliminate physical education from schools.
Ensuring children’s welfare is one of the most paramount interests of government. While they are children, parents provide them food, shelter, clothing and many other things that contribute to our consumer-based economy. From an economic standpoint, they are the future workforce. From a moral standpoint, children should be protected because they can not protect themselves.
Political ideology should not affect policy decisions related to children´s welfare. Many of the conservative Republicans currently in office are to blame of the consistent budgetary cuts that have taken place. They have managed to politicize an issue which objectively should not have any opposition. Why should children be punished with hunger if their parents lose their job while the economy is in a recession? How do you turn down health care coverage for children whose parents work but make too much more for Medicare but too little for private health insurance coverage?
If the government actually values children and youth, why isn’t it doing more to protect them? Why doesn’t the government invest in their continued wellbeing? Why is there political opposition to the creation of a safety net?