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.

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

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.

How Sweet It Is

Image via WikipediaVermont takes its maple syrup seriously. So seriously in fact that they want those that attempt to put fake maple syrup out there touting itself as real in jail. Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy is one of the proponents of a bill called Maple Agriculture Protection and Law Enforcement Act (or MAPLE for short). The bill calls for stiffer penalties on the sale of fraudulent maple syrup products. Presently, selling something as pure maple syrup will only get you a slap on the wrist -- it is a misdemeanor. The Act looks to increase the crime to felony status which would carry a 5 year term of imprisonment.
Vermont and its fellow New England states believe that not only it is unfair to genuine maple syrup producers but also to consumers who are being blindly deceived by false advertising.
As you may recall, Vermont recently took on McDonalds which was touting its Oatmeal to contain maple syrup, which in fact it didn't. Rather, it contained a syrup made mostly of high fructose corn syrup. Vermont was successful in getting the fast food machine to allow Vermonters the option of getting "real" maple syrup in their fast food oatmeal and making consumers aware that syrup isn't always what it claims to be.

Related articles

• Sweet justice: U.S. politicians push for crackdown on maple syrup fraud (canada.com)
• Vermont senators urge prison for mislabeling maple syrup (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Selling Fake Maple Syrup Could Soon Be a Federal Felony [Laws] (gawker.com)
• Sweet justice: U.S. bill proposes up to five years in jail for syrup fraud (news.nationalpost.com)
• Selling Fake Vermont Maple Syrup Will Land You in Prison (suburbanmen.com)

Vermont's Nuclear Future

Like many others, I have been following the goings-on with the Japanese nuclear reactor on an almost daily basis. My concern is both as a global citizen and as a Vermont resident since we are grappling with the issue of re-licensing of a nuclear power plant that is as old, and most likely as problem ridden as the Fukushima nuclear facility.
Last year the Vermont legislature voted to deny the owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant a license renewal. Recently, even despite the world news pouring in about the nuclear crisis in Japan, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted Yankee a license extension. Even more troubling is the fact this was done while the local news has been replete with articles about leaks of tritium at the plant. Last night, tap water as close to us as Massachusetts was recording radiation from Japan. I shudder to think of what Vermont would be like, or what might be left of it if we were forced to face a similar crisis.
Luckily, here in Vermont, we are the only state in the country that requires the legislature to approve the re-licensing of a nuclear facility. So far, our Legislature has been unwilling to do that. Let's hope that intelligent minds prevail and lobbyists cannot buy out our future --especially given the state of the nuclear crisis that is in the news at this very moment.