- In November, a six-year-old with down syndrome pointed a finger gun at her teacher and pretended to shoot.
- A “threat assessment” team was assigned to review the incident, and even though no threat was determined, the police were called per the school district’s policy.
- The child’s mother, Maggie Gaines, is now working to get the district to revise and clarify the policy so that this kind of incident doesn’t happen again.
Finger Gun Incident
A school district in Tredyffrin, Pennsylvania is reviewing a student discipline policy after the police were called on a six-year-old with down syndrome who pointed a finger gun at her teacher.
Margot Gaines is a kindergartner at Valley Forge Elementary School. In November 2019, the child grew frustrated and pretended to shoot her teacher with her finger, saying “I shoot you,”— an action that has launched the community into an ongoing discussion.
Maggie Gaines, Margot’s mother, has noted that because of her mental disability, Margot often struggles with transitions between activities, and this is why she responded with the finger gun.
“I imagine the utterance was not unlike the instances when I’ve told her it’s time for bed and she says, ‘I hate bed. I hate mommy.’ As most parents can attest, I have learned not to take offense,” Gaines said. “For I know that a short time later she is usually cuddled up to me, while we read bedtime stories and exchange kisses and cuddles before saying good-night.”
Margot was sent to see the principal, and a “threat assessment” team comprised of school and district personnel intervened. It was quickly determined that there was no safety threat and even that no disciplinary action was needed. But district policy was reworked in 2018 in the wake of a middle school student receiving anti-Semitic threats and more national school shootings, according to local news outlet SAVVY Main Line. Because of this protocol, administrators said they still needed to alert law enforcement.
“I was fine with everything up until they said ‘and we have to call the police,’” Maggie Gaines, Margot’s mother, told CBS Philadelphia. “And I said you absolutely do not have to call the police. You know, this is ridiculous.”
Local police wrote up an incident report, which differs from a criminal record and can’t be released to the public. But nevertheless, it still has Margot’s name on it in connection to a threat to shoot a teacher, and this worries her mother.
“I don’t know how that information will be used,” Maggie Gaines told SAVVY Main Line.
Response from Family
Maggie Gaines refused to let the incident go unaddressed, asserting that school officials misinterpreted their own policy with her daughter and took it a step too far. Gaines is now pushing for a revision and clarification of Policy 5401, which deals with threat assessment.
On Jan. 21, at a Tredyffrin/Easttown School District Committee meeting, she offered a statement with her stance on the issue.
“I am well aware that we live in a time when parents are concerned for their children’s safety in school. When I think of incidents at Parkland High School or Sandy Hook Elementary School, I too am haunted and disgusted,” Gaines said. “But I also think our society and our schools across the country have overreacted with respect to perceived threats, resulting in even finger guns wielded by kindergartners being viewed as cause to alert authorities.”
“I find this application of the threat assessment policy to be out of line with its intended purpose, which is to identify and help troubled students who may harm others in the future and to prevent that from happening,” Gaines said.
Gaines also pointed out that students with intellectual disabilities, like her daughter, are disproportionately disciplined in school, citing a 2018 report published by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.
Reactions From Others
The Gaines family has managed to rally the community as well and even involve higher elected officials.
At the January meeting, Kate Murphy, a former school board member and player in the creation of district policy, expressed her concern for the handling of the incident.
“Many of our changes and revisions were driven by events that occurred in our middle schools or high school, not in our elementary schools,” Murphy said. “It wasn’t my intent to notify the police, or create a ‘record’ with local law enforcement when an elementary-aged child made what our trained threat assessment team determined to be a ‘transient threat.’”
The situation was also addressed by Pennsylvania Sen. Andrew Dinniman, who was contacted by the Gaines family. Dinniman wrote a letter to the Superintendent of the school district, which he also made public in a Facebook post.
“As a state senator, an educator, and a parent, I am concerned when I hear that such important decisions appear to be guided blindly by written policy or legal interpretation without those in positions of authority using their judgment, experience, and commonsense to weigh in,” Dinniman wrote.
“Furthermore, I am alarmed that a school seems to be acting as an extension of the police department in promulgating data and records on children as young as kindergarteners,” he added.
The school district issued a statement to CBS Philadelphia, saying they have agreed to review the policy in question. Multiple meetings have been held in which the topic has been discussed, and more are scheduled in the coming weeks.
“When developing the current practice, the District worked collaboratively with parents, law enforcement and private safety/mental health agencies and legal consultants to ensure our safety measures reflected considerable input from both our local community and experts in the field of school safety,” it said.
Maggie Gaines also clarified that she in no way meant to attack the administrators at her daughter’s school, calling them “amazing professionals” who she “respect[s] tremendously.”
“They were told to follow a policy and a protocol, which they did,” she wrote in a Facebook post. “The real issue here is a bad policy that unnecessarily escalates even the most minor childhood issues to the police to create an incident report.”
“And my community needs to stand up and make sure the TESD School Board and Administration changes it to ensure it doesn’t happen again to my daughter or any other children in our district again,” Gaines added.
See what others are saying: (CNN) (CBS Philadelphia) (Washington Post)
Texas Doctor Says He Violated Abortion Law, Opening Matter Up for Litigation
Under the state’s new law, any citizen could sue the doctor, which would make the matter the first known test case of the restrictive policy.
Dr. Braid’s Op-Ed
A Texas doctor revealed in an op-ed published in The Washington Post Saturday that he performed an abortion in violation of the state’s law that bans the procedure after six weeks, before most people know they are pregnant.
The law, which is the most restrictive in the country and does not have exceptions for rape and incest, also allows civilians to sue anyone who helps someone receive an abortion after six weeks.
In the op-ed, Dr. Alan Braid, who has been practicing as an OB/GYN in Texas for 45 years, said that just days after the law took effect, he gave an abortion to a woman who was still in her first trimester but already beyond the state’s new limit.
“I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care,” he wrote. “I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.”
Braid went on to say that he understands he is taking a personal risk but that he believes it is worth it.
“I have daughters, granddaughters and nieces,” he concluded. “I believe abortion is an essential part of health care. I have spent the past 50 years treating and helping patients. I can’t just sit back and watch us return to 1972.”
If someone does opt to sue Braid over this matter, he could potentially be the state’s first test case in playing out the legal process. However, it is unclear if anti-abortion groups will follow through, despite their threats to enforce the law.
A spokesperson for Texas Right to Life, which set up a website to report people suspected of violating the ban, told reporters this weekend that it is looking into Braid’s claims but added, “It definitely seems like a legal stunt and we are looking into whether it is more than that.”
Even if abortion opponents hold off on Braid’s case, there are other legal challenges to the Texas law.
Shortly after the policy took effect, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit attempting to stop it. Last week, the department filed an emergency motion asking a federal judge in the state to temporarily block the ban while that legal battle plays out, with a hearing for that motion set for Oct. 1.
Regardless of what side the federal judge rules for, the other is all but ensured to sue, and that fight could take the question to the Supreme Court in a matter of months.
See what others are saying: (NPR) (The Texas Tribune) (The Wall Street Journal)
Pfizer Says Low Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine Is Safe and Effective in Kids 5 to 11
Pfizer Says Kids’ Vaccine Works
Pfizer announced Monday morning that its joint COVID-19 vaccine with BioNTech is safe and effective in kids ages 5 to 11.
While Pfizer’s vaccine candidate for younger children is the same version the FDA has already approved for people 12 and older, the children’s dose is only one-third of the amount given to adults and teens. Still, Pfizer said the antibody response they’ve seen in kids has been comparable to the response seen in older participants.
Similarly, the company said side effects in children have been similar to those witnessed in adults.
Pfizer said it expects to finish submitting data, which still needs to be peer-reviewed and then published, to the FDA by the end of the month. From there, the agency will ensure that Pfizer’s findings are accurate and that the vaccine will be able to elicit a strong immune response in kids at its current one-third dosage.
That process could take weeks or even all of October, but it does open the possibility that the vaccine candidate could be approved around Halloween.
While experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have called Pfizer’s announcement largely predictable, they’ve also urged people to let the research run its course.
With cases among children skyrocketing in recent months, some parents have begun urging pediatricians to give their children the jab early. Those kinds of requests are likely to increase with Pfizer’s announcement; however, officials have warned parents about acting too quickly.
“No one should really be freelancing — they should wait for the appropriate approval and recommendations to decide how best to manage their own children’s circumstances,” Bill Gruber, Pfizer’s senior vice president of vaccine clinical research and development, said according to The Washington Post.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (Axios)
Contradicting Studies Leave Biden’s COVID-19 Booster Plan Up in the Air
While some studies show that the effectiveness of Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID vaccines decrease over time, other publications argue the decline is not substantial and a full-flung booster campaign is premature.
Booster Rollout in Flux
President Joe Biden’s plan to offer COVID-19 booster shots is facing serious hurdles just a week before it is set to roll out. Issues with the plan stem from growing divisions among the scientific community over the necessity of a third jab.
The timing of booster shots administration has been a point of contention for months, but the debate intensified in August when Biden announced that, pending regulatory approval, the government would start offering boosters on Sept. 20 to adults eight months after they received their second dose of Pfizer or Moderna.
The announcement was backed by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci, among others.
However, many scientists and other health experts both inside and outside of the government have continually criticized the plan. They have claimed the data supporting boosters was not compelling and argued that, while the FDA approved third doses for immunocompromised Americans, the push to give them to the general public was premature.
The plan also drew international backlash from those who argued the U.S. should not launch a booster campaign when billions of people around the world have not gotten their first dose yet. Earlier this month, the World Health Organization (WHO) extended its request that wealthy countries hold off on giving boosters until at least the end of the year.
Those arguments appeared to be bolstered when federal health regulators said earlier this month that they needed more time to review Moderna’s application for booster shots, forcing the Biden Administration to delay offering third shots to those who received that vaccine.
Now, Pfizer recipients will be the only people who may be eligible for boosters by the initial deadline, though that depends on a forthcoming decision from an FDA expert advisory committee that is set to vote Friday on whether or not to recommend approval.
Debate Continues in Crucial Week
More contradictory information has been coming out in the days leading up to the highly anticipated decision.
On Monday, an international group of 18 scientists, including some at the FDA and the WHO, published a review in The Lancet arguing that there is no credible data to show the vaccines’ ability to prevent severe disease declined substantially over time, so boosters are not yet needed for the general, non-immunocompromised public.
The experts claimed that any advantage boosters may provide does not outweigh the benefit of giving the extra doses to all those who are unvaccinated worldwide.
On the other side, a study released Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine found that people who received a third shot of Pfizer in Israel were much less likely to develop severe COVID than those who just had the first two jabs.
The same day, both Pfizer and Moderna published data backing that up as well. Pfizer released an analysis that said data on boosters and the Delta variant from both Israel and the U.S. suggested “that vaccine protection against COVID-19 infection wanes approximately 6 to 8 months following the second dose.”
Moderna also published data, that has not yet been peer-reviewed, which also found its jab provided less immunity and protection against severe disease as time went on.
Further complicating matters was the fact that the FDA additionally released its report on Pfizer’s analysis of the need for a booster shortly after Pfizer’s publication. Normally, those findings would shine a light on the agency’s stance on the issue, but the regulator did not take a clear stand.
“Some observational studies have suggested declining efficacy of [Pfizer] over time […] while others have not,” the agency wrote. “Overall, data indicate that currently US-licensed or authorized COVID-19 vaccines still afford protection against severe COVID-19 disease and death.”
It remains unclear what the FDA panel will determine when they meet Friday, or what a similar CDC expert panel that is expected to meet next week will decide regarding vaccination policies.
Notably, officials at the two agencies are not required to follow the recommendations of their expert panels, though they usually do.
Even if the FDA approves Pfizer’s application as it stands to give boosters to those 16 and older, people familiar with the matter said the CDC might recommend the third jabs only for people 65 and older or those who are especially at risk.
Regardless of what is decided, experts have said that it is absolutely essential for the agency to stand firm in its decision and clearly explain its reasoning to the public in order to combat further confusion and misinformation.
“F.D.A. does the best in situations when there are strongly held but conflicting views, when they’re forthcoming with the data and really explain decisions,” Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, a vice dean at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health told The New York Times. “It’s important for the F.D.A. not to say, ‘Here’s our decision, mic drop. It’s much better for them to say, ‘Here’s how we looked at the data, here are the conclusions we made from the data, and here’s why we’re making the conclusions.’”