|
The human rights record of the United States is a controversial and complex issue. The United States has been praised for its progressive human rights record at times[2] and criticized for some of its policies and practices at other times.[3][4]
Historically, the United States has been committed to the principle of liberty and has sheltered many political and economic refugees in times of international strife. It has a powerful and independent judiciary[5] and a constitution that enforces separation of powers to prevent tyranny.[6] Legally, human rights within the United States are those rights recognized by the Constitution of the United States and those recognized by treaties ratified by the United States Senate as well as certain rights articulated by the Congress of the United States.[7][8] The Constitution and treaties are generally interpreted by the judicial branch and particularly the Supreme Court.[9][10] Human rights within the United States are thus largely determined by the judiciary.[11]
Internationally, the United States was central to the creation of the United Nations and to the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Much of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was modeled in part on the U.S. Bill of Rights.[12][13] In the latter part of the 20th century, however, the US has participated in few of the international human rights treaties, covenants and declarations adopted by the UN member states. In the 21st century, the US actively attempted to undermine the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[14]
The United States government has been criticized for human rights violations, particularly in the criminal justice system and where national security is a concern. Some critics (in both friendly and hostile countries) have criticized the U.S. Government for supporting alleged serious human rights abuses, including torture,[15] legal rendition, Cold War assassination,[16] Furthermore, human rights in the US typically are restricted significantly during times of war and crisis.[17][18] For instance, during the American Civil War and Reconstruction, and recently the Global War on Terrorism, the right to Habeas corpus in the United States has been significantly curtailed for persons accused of engaging in certain conduct.[citation needed]
Overview
On September 17 1787 the United States Constitution was adopted, which created a distinguished progressive liberal democracy that guaranteed unprecedented social and economic rights for all its citizenry. The American system seeks to ensure a free society where life, liberty and a host of inalienable human rights are guaranteed by its Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of the Constitution), and as called for by the Declaration of Independence. Civil liberties in the United States are built on what has been described as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".[19] This view of human liberty reflects the understanding that fundamental rights are not granted by the state but are inherent to each individual (hence these rights are "unalienable" and each human is "endowed" to them by their Creator). The Constitution recognizes a number of inalienable human rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to a fair trial and trial by jury.
Constitutional amendments have been enacted as the needs of the society of the United States changed. The Ninth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment recognize that not all human rights have yet been enumerated. The Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act are examples of human rights that were enumerated by Congress well after its writing.
The scope of the legal protections of human rights afforded by the US government is defined by case law, particularly by the precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States. Within the government, the debate about what may or may not prove to be an emerging human right is held in two forums, the United States Congress which may enumerate these or the Supreme Court which may articulate rights not recognized.
Equality
Racial
- See also: Slavery and African-American Civil Rights Movement
The initial applications of the Constitution of the United States did not recognize the human rights of many, particularly African Americans and Native Americans. The US Supreme Court held this in the pivotal decision Dred Scott. From the 1640s until the end of the American Civil War in 1865, the slave states had legal slavery of African Americans. On July 9 1868, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteed principles of legal egalitarianism; and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 guaranteed equality in public accommodations.
The egalitarian principle was used to challenge Jim Crow laws, which had little success before the 20th centry. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was found unconstitutional in 1883; Separate but equal, which allowed racial segregation in the South was upheld in the Plessy v. Ferguson (1898)decision until the Brown v. Board of Education and Bolling v. Sharpe decisions in 1954. In the 20th centry, Policies disfranchising African Americans such as grandfather clause, literacy test, poll taxes and white primaries were forbidden by the National Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Guinn v. United States decision (1913), the Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections decision (1966) and the Smith v. Allwright decision (1944). In addition Lynching by the Ku Klux Klan of African Americans and their white Republican supporters was relatively common in Southern states until the middle of the 20th century, when lynching was targeted and ended by the federal government. Native Americans did not have any citizenship rights until the Dawes Act of 1887 and the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Some criticize the overrepresentation of blacks on death row as evidence of the unequal racial application of the death penalty. This over-representation is not limited to capital offenses, in 1992 although blacks account for 12% of the US population, about 34 percent of prison inmates were from this group.[20] In McCleskey v. Kemp, it was alleged the capital sentencing process was administered in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 2003, Amnesty International reported those who kill whites are more likely to be executed than those who kill blacks, citing of the 845 people executed since 1977, 80 percent were put to death for killing whites and 13 percent were executed for killing blacks, even though blacks and whites are murdered in almost equal numbers.[21]
Gender
With the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1920, the country had its first federal requirement for women to have equal rights with men with respect to voting. The amendment stated that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex".[22] While this does not necessarily guarantee all women the right to vote, as suffrage qualifications are determined by individual states, it does mean that states' suffrage qualifications may not prevent women from voting due to their gender.[22]
The proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution, first adopted in Congress in 1971 but never ratified by the state legislatures, would have constitutionally guaranteed the equal rights of men and women. The amendment was re-introduced in 2007 by Representative Carolyn Maloney (Democrat).[23] There is no constitutional recognition of any gender rights except for the 19th Amendment, but there are constitutional guarantees for equal rights for all.
Women are not restricted in employment rights, except in the United States military, which does not permit women to serve as Navy SEALs or in some front-line combat units in the United States Army or United States Marine Corps. However, this is in line with most countries' military policies. The Selective Service system does not require women to register for a possible military draft, a policy which was upheld in 1981 by the United States Supreme Court in Rostker v. Goldberg;[24] the Court ruled that this did not constitute discrimination against men. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 promotes equal pay for women, however, sometimes glass ceiling forces women to hold lower positions.
Age
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act bans employment discrimination against persons 40 years of age or older, and an amendment in 1978 forbids mandatory retirement in most sectors. In the Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents decision, the Supreme Court rules the state governments are exempt from this law. A special interest group AARP, is a powerful lobbying force against age discrimination.
Disability
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 adds similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, in the case Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, the Supreme Court rules its Title I unconstitutional. In the Bragdon v. Abbott decision the Supreme Court extends the protection to people with Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
Sexual orientation
- See also: Same-sex marriage in the United States and LGBT rights in the United States
The Constitution of the United States explicitly recognizes certain individual rights, but it does not explicitly state any sexual orientation rights. The 14th Amendment recognizes that some human rights may exist but are not yet recognized within constitutional law; for example civil rights for people of color and disability rights were long unrecognized. There may exist additional gender-related civil rights that are presently not recognized by US law. In one survey, "41% of adults agree that "not allowing same-sex couples to marry goes against a fundamental American right that all people should be treated equally, while 47% disagree."[25] Some states have recognized sexual orientation rights which are discussed below.
State Laws
Wisconsin was the first state to pass a law explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriage. In 1996, Hawaii ruled same-sex marriage is a Hawaiian constitutional right.
The United States does not have any substantial body of law relating to marriage, these laws have developed separately within each state. The Full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution ordinarily guarantees the recognition of a marriage performed in one state by another. However, the Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996,[26] which affirmed that no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state and the Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. The US Constitution denies the federal government any authority to limit state recognition of sexual orientation rights or protections. This federal law only limits the intrastate recognition of individual state laws and does not limit state law in any way.
Privacy
Privacy is not explicitly stated in the United State Constitution. In the Griswold v. Connecticut case, the Supreme Court rules that it is implied in the constitution. In the Roe v. Wade case, the Supreme Court uses privacy rights to overturn most laws against abortion in the United States. In the Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health case, the Supreme Court holds that the patient had a right of privacy to terminate medical treatment. In the Gonzales v. Oregon case, the Supreme Court holds the Federal Controlled Substances Act can not prohibit physician-assisted suicide allowed by the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of criminalizing oral and anal sex in the Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986) decision, however, it overturned the decision in the Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003) case and established the protection to sexual privacy.
Accused
United States maintains a presumption of innocence in legal procedures.The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution deals with the rights of criminal suspects. Later the protection is extended to civiil cases as well[27] In the Gideon v. Wainwright case, the Supreme Court requires that indigent criminal defendants who unable to afford their own attorney be provided counsel at trial. In the Miranda v. Arizona case, the United States requires police departments inform arrested persons of their rights, which is later called Miranda warning and typically begins with "You have the right to remain silent."
Capital punishment is used in some states. In the Furman v. Georgia case, the Supreme Court overturned arbitrary and inconsistent imposition of the death penalty on the grounds of Eighth and Fourteenth United States Constitution Amendments that forbid cruel and unusual punishment and due process of law. This decision halts execution of prisoners until the Gregg v. Georgia decision, which approved the retooled procedures be used to enact death penalty after the Furman decision. The decisions in the Roper v. Simmons and Atkins v. Virginia cases ban imposing capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18 or by the mentally handicapped.
Freedoms
Freedom of religion
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes the principle of the Separating the church and the state, while Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court's Lemon v. Kurtzman decision established the "Lemon test" exception, which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion.
This separate principle is used to limit school praying. In the Engel v. Vitale case, Government-directed prayer is ruled unconstitutional. In the Wallace v. Jaffree case, silence moment allocated for praying is also banned. The Supreme Court also ruled Clergy-led prayer public high school graduation and student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games illegal in the Lee v. Weisman case and the Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe case.
This freedom of exercising religion is also limited by Supreme Court rulings. In the Employment Division v. Smith decision, the Supreme Court maintains a "neutral law of general applicability" can be used to limit religion exercises. In the City of Boerne v. Flores decision, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is struck down as exceeding congressional power, however the decision's effect is limited by the Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal decision, which requires states to express compelling interest in prohibiting illegal drug use in religious practices.
Freedom of expression
-
In the United States, like other liberal democracies, freedom of expression (including speech, media, and public assembly) is an important right and is given special protection. According to Supreme Court precedent, the federal and lower governments may not apply prior restraint to expression, with certain exceptions, such as national security and obscenity.[28] There is no law punishing insults against the government, ethnic groups, or religious groups. Symbols of the government or its officials may be destroyed in protest, including the American flag. Legal limits on expression include:
- Solicitation, fraud, specific threats of violence, or disclosure of classified information.
- Civil offenses involving defamation, fraud, or workplace harassment
- Copyright violations
- Federal Communications Commission rules governing the use of broadcast media.
- Crimes involving sexual obscenity in pornography and text only erotic stories.
- Ordinances requiring mass demonstrations on public property to register in advance.
- The use of free speech zones and protest free zones.
- Military censorship of blogs written by military personnel claiming some include sensitive information ineligible for release. Some critics view military officials as trying to suppress dissent from troops in the field.[29][30]
Some laws remain controversial due to concerns that they infringe on freedom of expression. These include the Digital Millennium Copyright Act[31] and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.[32]
In two high profile cases, grand juries have decided that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller must reveal their sources in cases involving CIA leaks. Time magazine exhausted its legal appeals, and Mr. Cooper eventually agreed to testify. Ms. Miller was jailed for 85 days before cooperating. U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled that the First Amendment does not insulate Time magazine reporters from a requirement to testify before a criminal grand jury that's conducting the investigation into the possible illegal disclosure of classified information.
As of June 2004, over a dozen foreign journalists who arrived in the United States without an I-visa were apprehended and deported. The journalists were unaware of requirement, as open societies generally do not have a special visa requirement for journalists, as such with countries like Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Zimbabwe.[33]
When citizens' right to peacefully gather was acknowledged and written into the Bill of Rights, there were no clauses about "free speech zones", "permits" to hold demonstrations, or "protest free zones".
A controversial test of free speech rights took place when University of Florida student Andrew Meyer was grabbed by police while asking questions to Senator John Kerry at a Constitution Day forum at the University of Florida in Gainesville on September 17, 2007. Meyers was forced to the ground, tasered, and arrested for "inciting a riot". He was later charged with "resisting an officer" and "disturbing the peace".[34] He was forced to apologize to the University and the police to avoid more time in jail.[35]
In Reporters Without Borders’ 2006 worldwide press freedom index, United States is ranked 53rd out of 168.[36]
Freedom of movement
Chapter 4 of the Articles of Confederation guarantees the freedom of movement to free citizens except paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice. However, escaped slaves were not recognized as free citizens. The Article Four of the United States Constitution removes the restriction on paupers and vagabonds, but fugitive slaves were still limited until the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed. The Fourteenth Amendment extends the freedom to all persons within United States' jurisdictions. In the Shapiro v. Thompson case, the decision establishes new residents' welfare rights and a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. In the Oregon v. Mitchell case, the Supreme Court establishes new residents' voting rights in presidential and vice-presidential elections.
The Supreme Court maintains this principle by struck down state and local act of settlement laws. In the Edwards v. California case, a California law prohibiting the bringing of a non-resident "indigent person" into the state was ruled unconstitutional. In the United States v. Cassiagnol[37] case, laws banning wandering on public property was ruled unconstitutional. Both a Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance that criminalize nightwalking, habtitually living without visible means of support and a New York ordinance that criminalize wandering near public transportation stations were ruled unconstitutional in the Papachristou v. Jacksonville and People v. Bright[38]cases.
National security exceptions
- Further information: National Security Strategy of the United States
The United States government has suspended (or claimed exceptions to) various guaranteed rights on national security grounds, typically in wartime and conflicts (such as the United States Civil War, Cold War or the War against Terror). In some instances the federal courts have allowed these exceptions, while in others the courts have decided that the national security interest was insufficient.
Historical restrictions
Sedition laws have sometimes placed restrictions on freedom of expression. The Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by President John Adams during an undeclared naval conflict with France, allowed the government to punish "false" statements about the government and to deport "dangerous" immigrants. The Federalist Party used these acts to harass supporters of the Democratic-Republican Party. While Woodrow Wilson was president, another broad sedition law called the Sedition Act of 1918, was passed during World War I. It also caused the arrest and ten year sentencing of Socialist Party of America Presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs for speaking out against the atrocities of World War I, although he would later be released early by President Warren G. Harding. Countless others, labeled as "subverts" (especially the Wobblies), were investigated by the Woodrow Wilson Administration.
Presidents have claimed the power to imprison summarily, under military jurisdiction, those suspected of being combatants for states or groups at war against the United States. Abraham Lincoln invoked this power in the American Civil War to imprison Maryland secessionists. In that case, the Supreme Court concluded that only Congress could suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and the government released the detainees. During World War II, the United States interned thousands of Japanese-Americans on alleged fears that Japan might use them as saboteurs. This has since been proven false, and the United States Government has publicly acknowledged the racist undertones and motives of these acts.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution forbids unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant, but some administrations have claimed exceptions to this rule to investigate alleged conspiracies against the government. During the Cold War, the Federal Bureau of Investigation established COINTELPRO to infiltrate and disrupt left-wing organizations, including those that supported the rights of black Americans.
National security, as well as other concerns like unemployment, has sometimes led the United States to toughen its generally liberal immigration policy. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 all but banned Chinese immigrants, who were accused of crowding out American workers.
Inhumane treatment
Death penalty
- See also: Capital punishment debate
- See also: Capital punishment in the United States
Capital punishment is controversial. Death penalty opponents regard the death penalty as inhumane[39] and criticize it for its irreversibility[40] and claim that it lacks a deterrent effect.[citation needed] According to Amnesty International, "the death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights."[40]
The 1972 US Supreme Court case Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972) held that arbitrary imposition of the death penalty at the states' discretion constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In California v. Anderson 64 Cal.2d 633, 414 P.2d 366 (Cal. 1972), the Supreme Court of California classified capital punishment as cruel and unusual and outlawed the use of capital punishment in California, until it was reinstated in 1976 after the federal supreme court rulings Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976), and Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 ( 1976).[41] As of January 25, 2008, the death penalty has been abolished in District of Columbia and fourteen states, mainly in the Northeast and Midwest.[42]
The UN special rapporteur recommended to a committee of the UN General Assembly that the United States be found to be in violation of Article 6 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in regards to the death penalty in 1998, and called for an immediate capital punishment moratorium.[43] The recommendation of the special rapporteur is not legally binding under international law.
Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 there have been 1077 executions in the United States (as of May 23, 2007).[44] There were 53 executions in 2006.[45] Texas overwhelmingly leads the United States in executions, with 379 executions from 1976 to 2006;[46] the second-highest ranking state is Virginia, with 98 executions.[47]
A ruling on March 1, 2005 by the United States Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons prohibits the execution of people who committed their crimes when they were under the age of 18.[48] Between 1990 and 2005, Amnesty International recorded 19 executions in the United States for crime committed by a juvenile.[49]
It is the official policy of the European Union and a number of non-EU nations to achieve global abolition of the death penalty. For this reason the EU is vocal in its criticism of the death penalty in the US and has submitted amicus curiae briefs in a number of important US court cases related to capital punishment.[50] The American Bar Association also sponsors a project aimed at abolishing the death penalty in the United States,[51] stating as among the reasons for their opposition that the US continues to execute minors and the mentally retarded, and fails to protect adequately the rights of the innocent.[52]
Some opponents criticize the overrepresentation of blacks on death row as evidence of the unequal racial application of the death penalty. This over-representation is not limited to capital offenses, in 1992 although blacks account for 12% of the US population, about 34 percent of prison inmates were from this group.[20] In McCleskey v. Kemp, it was alleged the capital sentencing process was administered in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In 2003, Amnesty International reported those who kill whites are more likely to be executed than those who kill blacks, citing of the 845 people executed since 1977, 80 percent were put to death for killing whites and 13 percent were executed for killing blacks, even though blacks and whites are murdered in almost equal numbers.[53]
Prison system
- See also: Prisons in the United States and Cutter v. Wilkinson
The United States is seen by social critics, including international and domestic human rights groups and civil rights organizations, as a state that violates fundamental human rights, because of disproportionately heavy, in comparison with other countries, reliance on crime control, individual behavior control (civil liberties), and societal control of disadvantaged groups through a harsh police and criminal justice system. The U.S. penal system is implemented on the federal, and in particular on the state and local levels. This social policy has resulted in an extraordinary and unique in the world rate of incarceration, which hits Americans from the lowest socioeconomic backgrounds and racial minorities the hardest.
Some have criticized the United States for having an extremely large prison population, where there have been reported abuses.[54] As of 2004 the United States had the highest percentage of people in prison of any nation. There were more than 2.2 million in prisons or jails, or 737 per 100,000 population, or roughly 1 out of every 136 Americans.[55] "Human Rights Watch believes the extraordinary rate of incarceration in the United States wreaks havoc on individuals, families and communities, and saps the strength of the nation as a whole."[56]
Examples of mistreatment claimed include prisoners left naked and exposed in harsh weather or cold air;[57] "routine" use of rubber bullets[58] and pepper spray;[58][57] forced immersion in scalding water causing second and third degree burns (one documented case);[58] solitary confinement of violent prisoners in soundproofed cells for 23 or 24 hours a day;[59][57] and a range of injuries from serious injury to fatal gunshot wounds, with force at one California prison "often vastly disproportionate to the actual need or risk that prison staff faced."[58] Such behaviors are illegal, and "professional standards clearly limit staff use of force to that which is necessary to control prisoner disorder."[58]
Human Rights Watch raised concerns with prisoner rape and medical care for inmates.[60] In a survey of 1,788 male inmates in Midwestern prisons by Prison Journal, about 21% claimed they had been coerced or pressured into sexual activity during their incarceration and 7% claimed that they had been raped in their current facility.[61] Tolerance of serious sexual abuse and rape in United States prisons are consistently reported as widespread.[citation needed] It has been fought against by organizations such as Stop Prisoner Rape.
The United States has been criticized for having a high amount of non-violent and victim-less offenders incarcerated,[56][62][63] as half of all persons incarcerated under State jurisdiction are for non-violent offences and 20 percent are incarcerated for drug offences, mostly for possession of cannabis.[64][65]
The United States is the only country in the world allowing sentencing of young adolescents to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. There are currently 73 Americans serving such sentences for crimes they committed at the age of 13 or 14. In December 2006 the United Nations took up a resolution calling for the abolition of this kind of punishment for children and young teenagers. 185 countries voted for the resolution and only the United States against.[66]
Police brutality
In a 1999 report, Amnesty International said it had "documented patterns of ill-treatment across the U.S., including police beatings, unjustified shootings and the use of dangerous restraint techniques."[67]
According to a 1998 Human Rights Watch report, incidents of police use of excessive force had occurred in cities throughout the U.S., and this behavior goes largely unchecked.[68] An article in USA Today reports that in 2006, 96% of cases referred to the U.S. Justice Department for prosecution by investigative agencies were declined. In 2005, 98% were declined.[69] In 2001, the New York Times reported that the U.S. government is unable or unwilling to collect statistics showing the precise number of people killed by the police or the prevalence of the use of excessive force.[70]
Since 1999, at least 148 people have died in the United States and Canada after being shocked with Tasers by police officers, according to a 2005 ACLU report.[71]
Health care
- See also: Health care in the United States
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”[72] In addition, the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association require medical doctors to respect the human rights of the patient, including that of providing medical treatment when it is needed.[73] Influential figures, such as Pope John Paul II, have stated denying access to afforable health care is a violation of the right to life.[74] All Americans rights for health care are regulated by the US Patients' Bill of Rights.
Unlike most other industrialized nations, the United States does not offer its middle class and more affluent citizens (under the age of 65) subsidized health care, but only subsidizes those who cannot otherwise afford necessary medical services. The United States Medicaid program provides subsidized coverage to individuals and families with low incomes and resources. Coverage is subsidized for persons age 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria through Medicare, and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 mandates that no person may ever be denied emergency services regardless of ability to pay, citizenship, or immigration status.[75]
Nevertheless, according to a March 2007 poll by CBS News and the New York Times, 81 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the cost of health care.[76] 46.6 million Americans, or 15.9 percent, were without health insurance coverage in 2005.[77] Moreover, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act has been criticized by the American College of Emergency Physicians as an unfunded mandate.[78][79]
Universal health care debate
The level of government involvement in providing, ensuring, and enforcing the right to adequate health care is a topic of longstanding political debate. Indeed, as Peter Lawson indicates in his chapter of the Case Western University textbook Public Health Management & Policy,
| “ |
Various experts and pundits have weighed in on the debate surrounding calls for a national health care system precisely because this issue forces one to consider some of the most intrinsically difficult questions within the political and economic philosophy of the United States: the role of the state in private life, the appropriate position of the government vis a vis the market, and rights of individuals within a capitalist marketplace.[80] |
” |
Historically, several Democratic Presidents (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton) and legislators have attempted to institute universal coverage, as well as Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.
Health care itself is a human right, as defined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[81] There is vigorous debate if universal health care would improve or would reduce the quality of health care. If improved, this would enhance the right to health care. If degraded, then universal health care would correspondingly degrade this right.
The Center for Economic and Social Rights, an international human rights advocacy group, calls for health care reforms in the US to reflect the "right to health," and that the current US health care system "falls short of international standards for the right to health."[82] The center argues that, in order to uphold the right to health care in the United States, "Health care must be universally available and accessible," and that it should be "affordable to all, irrespective of race, gender, religion, geography, and income." Alicia Ely Yamin, a human rights attorney at the Harvard School of Public Health, has advocated universal health care in the American Journal of Public Health, also citing the pragmatic reason that the US government is failing, she claims, to enforce and uphold nominally extant health care rights.[83] She cites the disparities in quality of health care depending on factors such as race, nationality, and income in calling for the federal government to step in and enforce a more equitable system.
The United States spends more on health care than does any other nation as a percentage of GDP.[80] One textbook suggests that because costs are so high and are increasing; that the real problem is that the system is too good, and not everyone can afford increasingly expensive medical care, and so the real challenge might be to find any method that can afford the increasing medical expenditures.[84] However, the World Health Organization in 2000 ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[85][86] Similarly, a study by The Commonwealth Fund showed that, despite the comparatively large expenditure of public money on health care, the United States health system consistently underperforms in most performance indicators.[87] Similar results have been attested by Arnold S. Relman, who has argued that among the reasons for the lower returns on public health money in the US is that the current system of private insurers is less efficient than a single state-administered insurance system such as Medicaide.[88]
Other voices have also weighed in on the other side of the debate. For instance, Michael J. Hurd argues in The Washington Times:
| “ |
Health care is not a right -- no matter how often you hear otherwise. Health care is the consequence of heroic efforts on the part of individual doctors, who have every right to charge what the market permits. If we take away the right of medical professionals to set their own fees, we will undermine their independence and chase the best ones into early retirement.[89] |
” |
In 1994, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton attempted to implement a universal-care plan without a single-payer system. According to Hillary Clinton biographer Joyce Milton, this plan called for moving most Americans to HMOs and "strictly ration access to high-tech treatments, especially for the very ill and the elderly", cutting 124 billion from Medicare and, Milton argues, would have restricted access to pharmaceuticals that were too expensive.[90] Congress defeated the measure, and the Democrats were defeated in the 1994 midterm election which Newsweek described as a referendum on the big-government associated with the Clinton plan.[91]
Hurricane Katrina
See main article Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina
In 2005 the Gulf Coast of the United States was devastated by Hurricane Katrina. The city of New Orleans, which was built below sea level, and which includes many inhabitants who could not afford cars with which to evacuate the city during the storm, was particularly badly hit. The government response to the disaster was percieved as being very slow; thousands of people were stranded at the New Orleans Convention Center for four days without food and water. Furthermore, the government was accused of overreacting to the looting which followed the storm; soldiers facing looters (many of whom were merely looking for food and water) were ordered to "shoot to kill." Some allege that these problems reflected racial prejudice; most of those trapped in New Orleans were African-American.
On Life, Property and Personal Security
The increase of violent crimes in the United States poses a serious threat to its people's lives, liberty and personal security.
According to a FBI report on crime statistics released in September 2007, 1.41 million violent crimes were reported nationwide in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percent over 2005. Of the violent crimes, the estimated number of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters increased 1.8 percent, and that of robberies increased 7.2 percent [92]. Throughout 2006, U.S. residents age 12 or above experienced an estimated 25 million crimes of violence and theft. The violent crime rate was 24.6 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, for property crimes it was 159.5 per 1,000 households. Males experienced 26 violent victimizations per 1,000 males age 12 or older; females, 23 per 1,000 females age 12 or older. Blacks experienced 33 violent victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, higher than 23 for whites [93]. In the United States, one violent crime was committed in every 22.2 seconds, one murder committed in every 30.9 minutes, one rape in every 5.7 minutes, one robbery in every 1.2 minutes and one aggravated assault in every 36.6 seconds [94].
A survey by the Police Executive Research Forum in 163 U.S. cities shows that 65 percent of them reported increases or no changes in homicides during the first half of 2007, 41.9 percent of cities reported increases or no changes in aggravated assaults, 55.6 percent reported increases or no changes in robberies [95]. In New Orleans, 209 homicides were recorded in 2007, a 30 percent increase over that of 2006 [96]. Washington D.C. recorded 181 killings in 2007, jumping 7 percent over 2006 [97]. Baltimore recorded 282 homicides last year [98] and 428 killings were logged in New York by the end of November [99]. From January to September, Chicago recorded 119,553 criminal offences including 341 murders and 11,097 robberies [100]. From January to November, 737 people were murdered in Los Angeles, namely two were killed every day [101]. In Detroit, rampant violent crimes have forced many residents to find new homes elsewhere, andthe city's population has declined by nearly 1 million since 1950, according to the Census Bureau [102].The United States has the largest number of privately-owned guns in the world. Frequent gun violence poses a serious threat to people's life and property security. There are an estimated 250 million privately-owned firearms in the United States. Almost every American, even ex-criminals with felony records and minors, has firearms. The Associated Press reported on January 29, 2007 that about 410,000 Floridians were licensed to carry hidden guns, including 1,400 who had pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies, thanks to loopholes, errors and miscommunication of authorities.
In the United States, about 30,000 people die from gun wounds every year [103]. The USA Today reported on December 5, 2007 that gun killings have climbed 13 percent overall since 2002. An estimated 25 percent of all violent crime incidents were committed by an armed offender. The presence of a firearm was involved in 9 percent of these incidents [104]. According to a report by the U.S. Department of Justice on December 2007, among students ages 12-18, there were about 1.5 million victims of nonfatal crimes at school in 2005. In the same year, 8 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported being threatened or injured with a weapon in the previous 12 months. From July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006, among youth ages 5-18, there were 17 school-associated violent deaths [105]. On April 16, 2007, the Virginia Tech University witnessed the deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S.history with 33 killed and more than 30 others injured [106]. On February 12, 2007, two separate gun killings in the Salt Lake City and Philadelphia claimed eight lives and injured several other people [107]. OnJune 9, in Delevan, Wisconsin, a gunman killed four adults and two infants [108]. On October 31, a 38-year-old pregnant woman was caught in gang gunfire while returning home after trick-or-treating with her children on Halloween night. She was shot in head and killed [109]. On December 5, a man opened fire at a shopping mall in Omaha, Nebraska, killing eight people and injuring five others. The man then killed himself [110]. On December 7, three separate gun killings tookplace in San Jose, the acclaimed "safest city" in the United States. Four people were killed by guns in the city in less than one month. [111]. On December 9, two separate gun killings in churches killed five people and injured other five in Colorado [112]. On December 24 and 25, at least nine people were killed in several gun killings in New York City [113]. On December 26, bodies of six people died from gun wounds were discovered at a residential building in eastern Seattle [114].
International human rights
Support for human rights
The U.S. Department of State publishes a yearly report "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record" in compliance with a 2002 law which requires the Department to report on actions taken by the U.S. Government to encourage respect for human rights.[115] It also publishes a yearly "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.".[116] In 2006 the United States created a "Human Rights Defenders Fund" and "Freedom Awards."[117] The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series", created in 2006, are informal discussions between newly-confirmed U.S. Ambassadors and human rights and democracy non-governmental organizations.[118] The United States also support democracy and human rights through several other tools.[119]
The "Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award" recognizes the exceptional achievement of officers of foreign affairs agencies posted abroad.
|
