Standing Up for Parents’ Rights

The Turner family

This is adapted from my article published by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs blog InterAlia.

Imagine traveling outside the state where you reside and your child becomes ill. At first reflection, you wouldn’t hesitate to take her to the best and closest hospital. Well, after reading about the parents of 16-year-old Justina Pelletier from Connecticut who were charged with medical neglect, I will now hesitate before having my child treated by someone other than our family doctor.

In February 2013, when Justina began experiencing some gastrointestinal problems, a Tufts University doctor treating her wanted the girl to visit a doctor at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH). Justina was taken by ambulance to BCH because she was in a wheelchair at the time and heavy snow was falling in Boston. She was taken to the emergency room and her parents informed doctors that she was there to see a specific gastroenterologist. The intern at BCH instead called upon a psychologist who diagnosed Justina with somatoform disorder. This disorder is a mental condition where the patient’s symptoms have no physical or biological explanation.

The Pelletier family refused to accept this new diagnosis and kept repeating that she was at BCH for the specific purpose of seeing a certain gastroenterologist to treat her diagnosed mitochondrial disease as directed by her doctor at Tufts University. Her parents never requested a new evaluation of Justina and repeatedly refused to accept this new diagnosis and accompanying psychiatric treatment. The BCH doctors called in Massachusetts Children and Family Services to take custody of Justina and had her parents escorted from the hospital.

Justina’s parents live in Connecticut and were forced to hire lawyers and travel between Connecticut and Massachusetts during their fight to regain custody of their child. Poor Justina spent a year in a locked psychiatric unit at BCH and then was moved to another locked facility in Massachusetts. Her parents were only allowed a one-hour weekly visit and 20-minute phone call for the 15 months when she was in Massachusetts.

Fortunately, Justina is now going home. However, it was only because her father risked going to jail by breaking the judge’s gag order to speak with the press. That there is even a discussion about who has rights over children – the parent or the government – is profoundly disturbing.

Consider recent legislation that passed in Michigan that provides children 12-17 years old the option to deny their parents access to their online medical records. One mother went to the press and expressed her dismay when medical personnel at her doctor’s office informed her they would be having a private conversation with her 17-year-old daughter to discuss this new right of privacy from her parents. The doctor’s office manager also reportedly said that during the five-minute private conversation with her daughter a nurse would discuss birth control options, HIV, and share information about sexually transmitted diseases. When this mother refused to allow the conversation, they informed her she could not opt out of this new medical records access law. Sounds pretty heavy-handed.

Parental rights are doubtless more secure in Oklahoma than in some of the more liberal states. Oklahoma’s newly enacted Parents’ Bill of Rights (pdf) may be seen by some as duplicative, given that Oklahoma already has laws that firmly protect parents’ relationships with their children. However, given Washington’s desire to assert its preeminence over the states, Oklahoma policymakers must remain vigilant and active.

photo by:

The College Wage Premium vs the Marriage Wage Premium

She Did. He Did. They Are.

This is adapted from my article published by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs in their July Issue of the Perspective Magazine.

There is a lot of discussion in the mainstream media about the “college wage premium”—the benefit gained by earning a college diploma in terms of one’s long-term earning potential. Going to college provides many benefits to an employer, such as increased skills and a signal of work effort. In economic terms, college reshapes a person’s life by increasing his or her productivity, which higher productivity leads to higher earnings.

However, obtaining a college diploma is not the only life-altering event that can reshape a person’s life. Another major event is starting a family, which begins with marriage. After marriage, behavior often changes for the better, especially for men, as a person takes on the added responsibility of caring for a household. While harder to quantify, married people are more productive, as shown by higher earnings.

Unfortunately, the “marriage wage premium”—the earnings boost stemming from marriage—is not as widely discussed, or lauded, as the college wage premium.

We recently examined data from the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Current Population Survey as published in the October 2012 report, “Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2012.” (PDF) The data in the two nearby tables show a significant boost in earnings from marriage. Indeed, for the majority of workers the boost exceeds that of going to college.

Table 1 shows the median weekly earnings of all workers in America in 2012. A person with a high school diploma earns $652 per week while a person with at least a bachelor’s degree earns $1,165 per week—a difference of 79 percent. The college premium is also higher for men than it is for women.

Table 1 also shows the median weekly earnings of people who have never been married at $609 per week while a married person earns $880 per week—a difference of 44 percent. The marriage premium is also higher for men than it is for women.

Table 1 Median Weekly Earnings by Characteristic

However, the majority of America’s employed work on an hourly basis (59 percent). These workers tend to be blue collar and thus middle class. For these workers, the situation is very different, as shown in Table 2.

A person with a high school degree earns $13.58 per hour while a person with at least a bachelor’s degree earns $18.18 per hour—a difference of 39 percent. The college premium is also higher for women than it is for men.

Table 2 also shows the median hourly earnings of people who have never been married at $10.16 per hour while a married person earns $14.99 per hour—a difference of 48 percent. The marriage premium is also higher for men than it is for women.

Table 2 Median Hourly Earnings by Characteristic

It is very interesting how the marriage premium, on a percentage basis, is actually higher for the majority of working Americans—yet marriage gets so little attention in the media. There is significant social and human capital formation that occurs within a marriage—interpersonal skills, dependability, reliability, integrity, flexibility, and motivation, to name just a few—that has tremendous economic value in the workplace (see the Energy Industry Competency Model).

To further illustrate the economic value of marriage, the data also show the impact on earnings from divorce. For both median weekly earnings and median hourly earnings, a person that has been through a divorce suffers a decline in economic productivity (-12 percent for weekly earnings and -5 percent for hourly earnings). In both cases, the negative impact is highest for men.

An important extension of this work would be to further disaggregate the data to better ensure an apples-to-apples comparison. The workers represented actually fall into each of these classifications in different proportions, thus biasing the results. (For instance, “never married” individuals likely represent a greater proportion of “high school graduates,” which makes it less clear which factor is driving the lower earnings.) Even so, these data from the BLS study are enlightening.

Many people lament the fading of the “American Dream” of living a solid middle-class lifestyle, but fail to connect the decline of the American Dream with dramatic increases in divorce and cohabitation. Both cases result in lower household earnings and erode the middle class. Society simply cannot discard the marriage earnings premium without expecting to pay a steep economic cost.

photo by:

Families, Not Government, Can Reduce Generational Poverty

Child

This is adapted from my article published by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs in their May Issue of the Perspective Magazine.

I have previously written about the mayor of a great city, a prize-winning economist, and an award-winning actor who all speak about the need for stable families.

In my previous post I discussed the inner-city woes of an “F” school in Tulsa and how the administration was attempting to deal with the behavioral problems the children brought with them to the classroom. Teachers and administrators commented that it was the unstable family life experienced by the children which was a primary factor driving the children’s undesirable behavior.

The mainstream notion about disadvantaged youth is that coming from a low-income family determines the effects on those disadvantaged children in adulthood. It is this notion that propels government anti-poverty policies. In a 2007 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, economists Rajeev Dehejia, Thomas DeLeire, Erzo Luttmer, and Joshua Mitchell state (pdf):

“Many studies have documented the correlation between poverty and youth outcomes. Growing up in poverty is related to having worse physical health, lower levels of cognitive ability, lower levels of school achievement, and a greater level of emotional or behavioral problems.”

The authors also state that evidence shows that it is improbable that low income is the cause for all these adverse outcomes.

In addition to income, there is a significant amount of evidence that having an unmarried parent can help explain these effects. Economists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur argue in their book “Growing up with a Single Parent” that:

“growing up with only one biological parent frequently deprives children of important economic, parental, and community resources, and these deprivations ultimately undermine their chances of future success.”

 

For instance, the highest percentage of single-headed households is among black mothers. In an interview with President Barack Obama, television host Bill O’Reilly stated that 72 percent of black babies are born out of wedlock. He asked the president why he and Mrs. Obama haven’t explicitly addressed this very serious problem.

According to federal health statistics, 24.6 percent of births to non-whites were to single mothers in 1964. (This includes blacks, Hispanics, and Asians—so the percentage of blacks was even lower than 24.6 percent.)

Fast forward to 2012, almost 50 years since LBJ’s War on Poverty began, and the percentage of births to unmarried black mothers was 72 percent. Despite 50 years of LBJ’s War on Poverty and $20 trillion spent, we are presented with one of the many perverse results of welfare policy. Clearly, the intent of welfare policy in 1964 was not to rip apart the structure of the American family.

In groundbreaking research in 1985, Harvard economist Richard Freeman (pdf) found that the background factors that most influence who escapes inner-city poverty are churchgoing, whether other members of the family work, and whether the family is on welfare.

In Oklahoma, 62 percent of children are born on Medicaid. The percentage nationwide ranges from a whopping 71 percent in Louisiana to a low of 27 percent in Virginia (with a median value of 45 percent). Unfortunately, Oklahoma is in the very high range, at fourth-highest in the country. In absolute numbers, that represents, on average, approximately 30,000 babies that are born into Oklahoma’s welfare system each and every year.

Unfortunately, as I recently pointed, this suggests Medicaid will continue to swell, as this next generation of newborns is very likely to be remain dependent on the program into adulthood like their parents. Economist Carolyn Moeling’s 2004 research (pdf) is a forewarning to those Oklahoma policymakers flirting with expanding public assistance:

“States that offered the most generous benefits to single mothers were the states that experienced the largest increases in single motherhood.”

Largely missing from mainstream conversation about what factors influence disadvantaged individuals’ ability to improve their financial trajectory is church going—despite robust evidence. Dehejia, et al.’s empirical results:

“show that religious organizations play an important role in shaping the lives of disadvantaged youth by mitigating at least some of the long-term consequences of disadvantage.”

More specifically, the results are strongest when disadvantage is measured by maternal education or youth’s level of education.

Similarly, Byron Johnson finds that church attendance has been found to influence youth’s inclination whether to commit serious crimes. In other words, when youth are actively involved in church, the linkage between neighborhood disorder and serious crime diminishes (where neighborhood or social disorder is characterized by visible cues like hanging out, drinking, taking drugs, and creating a sense of danger on the streets).

Research which confirms that welfare policy contributes to the ongoing existence of intergenerational poverty abounds—whereas factors like two-parent households and churchgoing have been shown to ameliorate intergenerational poverty. For liberal policymakers and media to argue that intact marriages and religion have negligible effects on the health of a community and an economy is to blatantly ignore the facts.