One of Those Weeks

There are days that I wonder why it is that I choose to do what I do. There are days and then there are weeks. This was one of those weeks. It perfectly culminated in two things, a phone call where I actually couldn't remember who I was calling or my own name since I had been on so many calls back-to-back this morning and then a short while later, when my phone rang, I couldn't find it under all the papers on my desk. So, folks, I thought I'd share this little gem which just about sums it all up. 

It's more than just bathrooms, folks

It’s more than just bathrooms folks

April 9, 2016 in Musings, The T's House | Tags: bathroom law., constitution, constitutional rights,discrimination, employment, gay, Law, LBGQ, legal, minimum wage, North Carolina, rights,transgender, vermont, wage and hour | Leave a comment (Edit)

Once again, we need to read between the lines and maybe, just maybe, read the lines themselves, rather than let the media do the reading and interpreting for us. The new law passed in North Carolina is more than just a law regulating the use of public bathrooms in the state.

At the time of the Boston marathon bombing, we had a very interesting discussion at our dining room table to explain to the boys why, as horrible as it might seem at that time, that the suspected bomber needed to have his rights protected. The basic reason, is because they are your rights and my rights too. It is a very slippery slope that we go down when we think it’s okay to take away one person’s rights or deny one his or her rights. While it might seem perfectly fine under one circumstance (think the marathon bomber), what happens when it’s your turn and your rights that are up for grabs? Not so okay now is it? Like it or not, the rights we have apply to all of us, not just the ones that we pick and choose under the circumstances. When folks were opening up their doors to allow police to search their homes, how many invoked that wonderful little right called the 4th Amendment and said, no. No, you cannot just come into my home police, without a warrant and search it. Not now, not ever, because my constitutional rights say so.

If you actually read the new law in North Carolina, it has two parts. One part regulates the use of public restroom facilities and limits their use to a single sex based upon a person’s biological sex. The second part, entitled the Wage and Hour Act prevents any local government (read: city or town) from passing any law, ordinance or regulation that regulates the minimum wage in the state. That means that any person in North Carolina, not just transgender folks are subject to North Carolina’s whim on whether or not to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage in North Carolina is presently $7.25 per hour. Unlike other places in the country where cities have chosen to raise the minimum wage because they recognize that living in a city may be more expensive, cities are now prohibited from any such actions.

The law addresses the minimum wage, and does not allow any local government to set a minimum wage.“The legislature took that power expressly away, so forbade any local government from raising the minimum wage beyond what federal and state law require,” Charlotte Law School Professor Brian Clarke said.

To give you an idea of why folks, all folks not just the transgender and LBGQ folks should be jumping up and down in protest, many places in the country have enacted $15 minimum wages. Realize this means that minimum wage workers in North Carolina are getting paid just about 1/2 of what other people working minimum wage jobs can get paid. Here in little tiny Vermont our minimum wage is $9.60 per hour and while that’s not great, it’s still way better than North Carolina. Do you see something wrong with what North Carolina did with this law? You should.

The law also prevents any person (read: ANY PERSON) from pursuing a state action under the law for the public policies expressed in the act which also governs employment discrimination. Guess what folks? Under the law and its line “This Article does not create, and shall not be construed to create or support, a statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein” seems that all persons in the state are affected. Got that? Everyone.

Have a discrimination claim based upon religion, race, color  that does not fall into one of the state’s already established laws, guess what, you have no civil right to file suit in the state  court according to this law. According to  Charlotte School of Law professor, Brian Clark (who knows way more than little ‘ol lawyer me does) “In a very hidden way, it eliminated the ability for employees in North Carolina to file claims under state law for employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, color and age,” Clarke said, “And that’s a right that North Carolina employees have had since 1982… and it’s gone.” Poof. Gone. Folks should be rioting in the streets.

So, people, especially those who are peppering Facebook with their very prejudiced views of the rights of the transgender community under the North Carolina law and those that are speaking out against it, perhaps you should realize that when a particular group’s rights are affected, maybe, just maybe your rights are too. Under this law, rights were affected, not just for a particular segment of the North Carolina population but for all of the North Carolina population.

See, it’s really not an us v. them mentality. People are people and under the laws of this country we are all entitled to our rights, whether or not each of us personally stands for or against the person behind the right.  My kids understand this and have for some time. It’s about time that the adult population in this country realizes it too. One day, it could be your right that at stake. Remember that. Always.

Being Mindful

Mindfulness is a word that you most likely have been hearing a lot lately. It is in the news, it is on Facebook, it is on Twitter and other social media sites.

Lawyers are some of the folks who try to do it all, I know I am. I remember one time that I was trying to listen to two different seminars - one on the computer and one of the phone while doing some work. Guess what? I got nothing from it and I knew I probably wouldn't but I still tried.

Sometimes, it is necessary to step back, take a breath (a real breath, not that shallow, urgent thing we do all the time that we pass for taking a breath) and remember that we don't need to do it all.

I want to share something I came across that reminds us lawyers that slowing down occasionally and really paying attention to our days and the moments that comprise them, isn't such a bad thing.

http://www.employmentlawmatters.net/2016/01/articles/uncategorized/lawyers-here-are-five-things-you-can-do-right-now-to-increase-mindfulness/

The link discusses mindfulness and the law and gives us five really simply tips how to make ourselves just a little more aware of the world around us.

Give it a try.

A Parent's Perspective on Turning 18

Birthday cake for 18 years (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

My youngest son turned 18 this weekend. While it was a celebration of his adulthood in the eyes of the world, as a parent I know that my job as a mom is not done, not by far.  In the eyes of the law, my son is now on his own --- if the law only knew the truth. While responsible beyond his years and very mature, he is still a kid in a lot of respects. This is a scary prospect to parents and children alike. No longer can mom or dad "take care of it" -- "it" being speaking to doctors, paying bills, or the multitude of other "mom" or "dad" tasks that our 18+ year olds, who are still kids to us, ask us to do everyday.

Two days before his birthday, I was at the doctor's office with my son for his college physical in order to sign off on the immunization he needs for college. By law, I was the adult and he was the child and he was not legally able to sign that authorization despite the fact that he is not allowed into college without it. Somehow, in the eyes of the law, my son morphed from child to adult in that ensuing 48 hour period and could have walked in and signed for himself two days later.

Some of what you will encounter is frustrating to a parent and to their 18- or 19- or 20-year old. For example, when my other son was at the orthopedist for a sprained finger, and had turned 18 in the interim between injury and appointment, I was not allowed to speak for him to the doctor's staff. I literally stood there patiently (and I use the word "patiently" loosely) waiting while we went through a bizarre scene in order to comply with the law. The staff person asked my son a series of questions about his medical history which he did not know the answer to, and he in turn asked me, I answered him and then he answered them. This went on for each and every question. I kid you not. A little ridiculous, I am sure we would all agree, but legally required nonetheless. Should he have known the answers to some of those questions, maybe or definitely some could argue, but the simple fact was that he didn't and I did. Simple as that. Somehow, implicit in the legal jump from childhood to adulthood evidently should have come a knowledge dump of things in his medical history of which he has no memory because he was a young child.

While there is certainly no shortage of institutions willing to look the other way over this "adult v. child" dilemma when they outstretch their hands to you as parent for payment of the "adult" expenses your child has incurred -- think college tuition, doctor and hospital bills - these same institutions can frustrate us as parents to no end when the "proxy" that is good enough to get a copy of the bill, isn't good enough to see the grades associated with that or the "payer" associated with the health care provider's bill can't get access to the medical records or diagnosis when your child is ill.

Fret not, because there are two documents that are the solution to this predicament -- a durable power of attorney and a health care proxy. These documents are often associated with elder care and estate planning but should not just be utilized in the planning for our aging parents or grandparents. They can also be used to help alleviate the frustration and aggravation felt by both parents and young adult children as well.

A durable power of attorney signed by the adult child can name and permit a parent or other adult to act legally on behalf of the child and help to eliminate some of the impediments that both will face as we navigate this bridge from childhood to adulthood and can be very helpful in the event that your newly adult child needs you to act on their behalf - be it for medical emergencies, financial transactions or other legal necessities. College students headed off to school may soon realize when they are a long car ride or an even longer plane ride away from home that something at home needs their attention or signature. A power of attorney permits the student to authorize the parent to act legally on their behalf and complete the transaction or perform the necessary task. While we all won't run into these situations, I would suggest that you take the time to have one drafted to avoid any potential pitfalls and additional stress when that "adult" of yours is calling mom for help.

The other very helpful and essential legal document for your "adult" child is a health care proxy or advance directive depending upon the nomenclature where you reside. This legal document allows you to make health care decisions for your "adult" child in the event that he or she cannot and have access to their medical records and permit you to discuss their medical condition with the child's doctors. Scary thought that the health care providers no longer can ask or follow your wishes for the care of your child. Especially, if that child is unable to speak for themselves due to some injury or medical condition. Imagine how devastating it would be to a parent to find out that they cannot legally have access to their child's medical diagnosis or condition when an accident or injury occurs, simply because the child is an adult and privacy rules apply.

Being a young, new adult is an exciting and difficult transition for parent and child alike but there are means to help make that transition especially for those who are also embarking on a new adventure in the form of college, a little easier and less stressful. Most of these documents are easily drafted by an attorney who can make sure that your young adult's particular situations are addressed.

As a mom and a lawyer, the first "legal" documents, aside from voter registration, that my sons have completed are these documents.

Produced with Genetic Engineering

"Produced with Genetic Engineering"
This is one of the new labels that you will most likely see if Vermont's GMO labeling law successfully avoids legal challenge and goes into effect as planned just about one year from now on July 1, 2016. The Vermont Attorney General's office last week released the rules regarding the labeling of foods produced with genetic engineering that will guide manufacturers and producers of genetically engineering products for sale in this state.

What is covered:

1. Unpackaged food required to be labeled such as fresh fruits and vegetables

2. Packaged foods with genetic engineering offered for sale in Vermont including packaged raw agricultural commodities as well as processed foods. 

What is exempt:

1. Animal products and foods bearing USDA approved labels

2. Foods certified as not produced with genetic engineering

3. Processing aids

4. Alcoholic beverages

5. Foods containing genetically engineered materials where the weight of the genetically materials is less than .9 percent of the total weight of the food

6. Foods verified by a qualifying organization - such as food certified as "organic" in accordance with USDA National Organic Program accreditations. 

7. Food for immediate consumption such as unpackaged foods served in restaurants.

8. Medical food as defined by federal law. 

The entire set of rules adopted by the Attorney General can be found here.

On Monday, the Federal Court denied the Grocery Manufacturing Association's request for a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of the law beginning on July 1, 2016. This was a positive result for Vermont, the "david" in this david versus goliath battle. Vermont is the first state in the nation to pass and put into effect a GMO labeling law and opponents of the law were quick to file a complaint in federal court seeking to have the new law invalidated. This request for an injunction was the first step for the opponents to see if they would be able to have the court order that the law could not go into effect until the litigation was finalized. 

While this was rather important and justifiably was splashed across the news around the country, not many reported that there was a second part to that ruling. While the opponents were seeking to have the court grant injunctive relief, the state of Vermont filed its own application seeking to dismiss, at least in part, the opponent's claim. Vermont was predominantly unsuccessful on it application to dismiss various claims. For example, in response to the opponent's claim that the labeling violates First Amendment rights, the court ruled: The court believes that Act 120’s affirmative labeling requirement is not barred by the First Amendment, but denies Vermont’s motion to dismiss the First Amendment challenge because the court recognizes that this is a serious question of law as to which courts might disagree; but the court finds that Act 120’s ban on the term “natural” does violate the First Amendment.

The court did dismiss the opponent's claim that the labeling law violated the Commerce clause stating that the Act's affirmative labeling law did not violate the Commerce clause since the labeling requirement only applied to products sold in Vermont. The court in its ruling was skeptical of some of the plaintiff opponent's claims of a constitutional nature, but since this was a preliminary application, the court was reluctant to outright dismiss the plaintiff's claims as a whole. 

As has happened man

Aid in Dying

While Oregon got a great deal of media attention when a young woman, Brittany Maynard, decided to use its law to end her life when she was dying of cancer last year; Vermont was actually the first state to have its legislature pass an aid in dying law. Vermont’s law permits a capable terminally ill adult to request and obtain lethal drugs which the person can self administer in an effort to hasten the patient’s imminent death.  Vermont’s law is a stepped version which has a series of patient protections in place that must be complied with that will cease to exist in 2016. Those protections put in place in the bill in an effort to garner the legislative support necessary to pass the measure provides:

— A requirement for a psychiatric evaluation if there is any indication that a patient requesting lethal medication has impaired judgment

— A 15-day waiting period between a patient’s first and second request for the medication

— A waiting period after the last request before the doctor actually writes a prescription for the lethal drug.

Upon the expiration of these so-called patient protections, the discussion regarding the end-of-life decision of a terminally ill patient becomes a private conversation between a patient and his or her doctor. There are those who are concerned that government should still be involved in the discussion, not really trusting that the patient-physician relationship would sufficiently address concerns.

According to articles written on the issue following the passage of Vermont’s law, “after July 1, 2016, the law will protect physicians from civil or criminal liability, and from professional misconduct charges.” Despite the changes that are set to occur in 2016, there still needs to be informed consent on the part of the patient so doctors are required to inform a terminally ill patient of all the options including hospice and palliative care. Ultimately, though, the issue is still a decision to be made by the patient in conjunction with his or her doctor.

The issue of whether or not the patient “protections” that are presently in place should be continued past 2016 is a discussion that is currently taking place in Vermont. If this issue touches you or someone in your family, perhaps now is the time to voice your opinion.

Related articles

• Brittany Maynard’s Death May Bring Life to ‘Aid in Dying’ Bill
• Vermont takes 2nd look at aid-in-dying law
• Vermont takes 2nd look at aid-in-dying law
• The awkward advanced care conversation we need to have

Phones Down, Heads Up!

Phones Down, Heads Up!

Chances are that as of October 1^st, you will hear and see this phrase a lot. October 1^st, Vermont joins fourteen other states around the country in banning the use of handheld cellphones, laptops, music players and other portable electronic devices while driving. Gone will be the days of grabbing your phone to make a call while you are driving to work, the grocery store or to pick up kids from school. 

While many of us may think that this “multitasking” is a productive use of our time and be annoyed or downright angry about the new law, there are some hard facts that may make you think twice.

Distracted driving by talking on a cell phone makes a driver four times as likely to crash and texting while driving can increase that risk even more, making a driver 23 times as likely to crash. We often forget what we were taught in driver’s education, that driving a motor vehicle is a very big responsibility. As drivers, we have our lives, the lives of our passengers and the lives of the other folks driving around us on the road and pedestrians at stake when we turn the key in the ignition. 

Driving deserves our full and complete attention. It is important that we remember that the phone call can really wait and if it can’t pull over to the side of the road and take or make the call… and then continue on to your destination.

The new law does not prevent you from talking on the phone in your car while you are driving as long as you follow the requirements of the new law. The only exception to the law is making a call in an emergency to police or emergency personnel, such as 911.

Cellphone Keyboard (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What you need to know:

1. Your phone must be secured in the vehicle as of October 1st. It can be secured in a mount which can be placed anywhere in the vehicle with the exception of the windshield, it can be in your purse or your pocket or in the glove compartment. It just cannot be in your hands.

2. You are allowed to use your hand to activate or deactivate the speakerphone feature on your phone but you have to use a hands-free method of talking – such as using speakerphone, a headset or the Bluetooth feature of your phone, which allows your call to be taken over the internal speakers of your vehicle.

3. You are still allowed to use the GPS feature of your phone under the new law.

4. If your vehicle or your phone is not equipped with Bluetooth capability, you can still talk hands-free by buying and using a simple headset with a microphone. These are relatively inexpensive and can range from the traditional headset that goes over your head to the earbud headsets that are secured in your ear canal.

5. Fines for violating the new law are quite steep. A first offense can range from $100 to $200. Fines for a second or additional violation during any two year period ranges between $250-$500.

6. If you are caught using your cellphone in a work zone where workers are present, in addition to the fines mentioned above, you also face two points on your license for a first offense and five points for any subsequent offense. There are no points for offenses that do not occur in a work zone.

Regardless of using hands-free technology it is important to remember that junior operators in Vermont are never allowed to use a cellphone while driving unless they are calling the police or emergency personnel.

Related articles

• Vermont reminds drivers of Oct. 1 cellphone ban

Be a Happy Lawyer

Here is an infographic about just how miserable the profession of law can be....seriously and how you can not let it take you to that dark side.

Thanks to the folks at MyCase for this reminder that we can all make the practice of law a little better. 

Related articles

• 15 Ways To Become The Happy Lawyer You Were Meant To Be
• [INFOGRAPHIC] Break The Bonds Of Depression: Be The Happy Lawyer You Were Meant To Be

Attorney Orange?

For the 40 days of Lent, one attorney is trading his normal "attorney" wear for a little different look - prison orange. The attorney is using this period to help raise awareness of inmates and the difficult time that many prisoners face trying to return to society after serving their sentence.

Photo: WacoTrib.com

The Waco Mission legal advocate and minister is hoping that his donning of the orange scrubs worn by inmates will not only raise some eyebrows in the community, but also raise awareness.

He is blogging his experience and his blog is entitled 40daysinorange.wordpress.com.

To read the whole story, read here.

To say that he is turning a few heads in his Lenten pursuit is probably an understatement, particularly for his other clients and those that he encounters out on the street during his off-work hours.

Best of luck to Kent McKeever in his Lenten challenge.

Ridiculous Lawsuits

Here is an infographic demonstrating just some of the bizarre lawsuits that have been filed. Trust me, there are plenty more than these.

Thanks to www.mycase.com for this Friday laugh.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 Today in the mail I received a letter from a business known as the National Academy of Family Law Attorneys. Inc. advising me that I am a spectacular attorney and I have been chosen from their "rigorous selection process" to receive their "prestigious" Top 10 Attorney Award. The letter goes to tell me that this association has been in existence since 2013 (really?) with the primary goal of recognizing the top 10 family law lawyers in each state for their "hard work". I am urged to return my acceptance by a specific date or my spot will be given to the first alternate. The second page entitled "Award Acceptance Form" contains spots for all the necessary information for me to receive my "prestigious" award including the spot where I can indicate how I want to pay the $250 Award Administration Fee to them for this honor. When I fork over $250, they will provide me with a plaque telling me how wonderful I am as a Top 10 Attorney. 

There are days when my self confidence may slip a little low, but  honestly, I don't think I need to fork over $250 for a plaque to remind myself of how special I really am. Plus, it would help if they got my name correct. I haven't been "Smith" since 1992 and I am not licensed in Vermont under that name at all. That, and the fact that a Google search doesn't come up with any such organization on the first page of hits, is more than enough to make me say, thanks, but no thanks.

I think I'll file this one where it belongs.....in the trash.

Do I get paid for that?

English: TSA Passenger Screening (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Workers who are required to go through security screenings either coming or going from their job are asserting that they are entitled to get paid for the time including any time spent waiting for the screening since it's a required part of their jobs. Obviously, employers disagree. The Supreme Court of the United States has granted cert to consider and decide the issue concerning workers at an Amazon warehouse facility. Look for  Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk which will decide the issue. Read more about it at the ABA Journal
What is your opinion?

Related articles

• Supreme Court will hear Amazon.com case
• Amazon Warehouse Workers Take Their Fight To Supreme Court
• Amazon workers look for justice from a business-friendly Supreme Court

Blogger's First Amendment Rights

Last week, a California federal appeals court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that bloggers have constitutional First Amendment rights similar to journalists. Obsidian Financial Group sued blogger Cheryl Cox when she made claims of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering among other claims. They contended defamation and they won at the trial level with the blogger being slammed with a $2,500,000 damage award. Cox appealed and the federal appeals court determined that Cox, a blogger, was entitled to the same protections in her virtual arena that a paper media journalist is entitled to under the First Amendment.

According to the appellate court, statements of public concern on a blog such as those made by Cox are entitled to the protections of the First Amendment, the same as traditional print journalists enjoy.

 The protections of the
First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was
a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news
entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond 
just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both
sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately
warned, a First Amendment distinction between the
institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With
the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and
broadcast media . . . the line between the media and others
who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes
far more blurred.” (Citation omitted). In
defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and
the public importance of the statement at issue—not the
identity of the speaker—provide the First Amendment
touchstones.
We therefore hold that the Gertz negligence requirement
for private defamation actions is not limited to cases with
institutional media defendants.

The court went on to reverse the trial court's findings and remand the matter for a new trial.

Related articles

• U.S. Court: Bloggers Are Journalists, even when they're libeling you
• Bloggers Have First Amendment Rights
• Bloggers, public have First Amendment protection - US court
• Defamation and Blogging - The 9th Circuit has Spoken

Newly Minted Legal Terms

English: A multi-volume Latin dictionary (Egidio Forcellini: Totius Latinitatis Lexicon, 1858–87) in a table in the main reading room of the University Library of Graz. Picture taken and uploaded on 15 Dec 2005 by Dr. Marcus Gossler. Español: Diccionario de latín (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here are some new legal terms that are being used that you may or may not have heard of out there.

1. Benchslap - According to Urban dictionary

A benchslap is when a judge humiliates an attorney, insults another judge, or reverses a lower court in a particularly demeaning manner. A judicial bitch slap, if you will. This term was popularized by David Lat of AboveTheLaw.com 

2. Litigatrix - Again, coined by David Lat of AboveTheLaw.com and defined by Urban dictionary as a hot female litigator - a combination of female litigator and dominatrix. 

David, you seem to be on a roll. Although I didn't see a definition for the last neologism "judicial diva" I'm sure we can all just use our imagination.

Related articles

• Non-Sequiturs: 01.28.14
• Neologism: Definition, Meaning, and Forms
• Best Job Ever: Lexicographer Erin McKean of Wordnik.com

Being A Lawyer Isn't All It's Cracked Up To Be

U.S. News and World Report (Photo credit: afagen)

According to the 2014 U.S. News and World Report, being a lawyer isn't the most desirable job. In fact, it's not in the top 10 -- or the top 20 or dare I say, even the top 50. Out of the 100 jobs listed in the findings, lawyer holds the position of 51. We, as a profession, are on the bottom half of the list, not too far behind jobs such as middle school teacher and nail technician and only slightly ahead of bill collectors. Not very encouraging, is it?

But, don't be discouraged if you are a lawyer or in law school right now since there is an upside. Paralegals are listed in the 87th spot so I guess in the legal field, it could always be worse.

To answer your burning question -- the lowest on the totem pole of best jobs is painter and the job holding the #1 best job spot is software developer.

The majority of the top 25 is filled with technology, health care and engineering positions.

Is an Autistic Child Worth $85?

Is an autistic child worth $85?

Is an autistic child worth approximately $85? That is the question that New York senator Chuck Schumer is proposing to the federal government. Schumer is proposing a federal law, entitled Avonte’s Law, where the federal government would pay the approximately $85 per child  plus a small monthly fee which would voluntarily allow parents of autistic children the ability to track the child if the child became separated. While this might seem unnecessary to some, a fair number of autistic children are completely non-verbal or speak very little. If they wander away from parents, siblings or sitters either at home, school or in a public setting it can be difficult for the child to get assistance or for adults to find the child.

English: Charles Schumer, United States Senator from New York Español: Charles Schumer, Senador de los Estados Unidos de Nueva York (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This was the case of the missing New York child, Avonte Oquendo, the 14-year-old non-verbal autistic boy that left his school in October. Despite a large three-month search fueled by social media and the press, the child was not located and his remains were found last week in the East River. Had the young man had one of the proposed tracking devices either on his wrist or his clothing his family would have been able to locate him when he left the school in the middle of the school day.

The program that Schumer is proposing is similar to a voluntary tracking program for senior citizen who suffer from Alzheimer’s and have a tendency to wander. Under Schumer’s bill the federal funds would go to police departments who would purchase the tracking devices and have them available to give to parents who request them.

Schumer stated during a press conference to announce the bill that while we are unable to go back in time, the bill would help to ensure that the tragedy suffered by the Oquendo family does not happen to anyone else.

Related articles

• A Day After Funeral, a Push for ‘Avonte’s Law’
• Law proposed for autistic NYC boy who vanished
• Chuck Schumer proposes ‘Avonte’s Law’ to fund tracking devices on children with autism
• Funding Proposed for Tracking Devices for Children with Autism