As an applied science, social work practice and research is interdisciplinary and draws from a range of disciplines including psychology, sociology, medicine, gerontology, public administration, policy studies, and economics.
Social Work is part of the University of South Dakota's School of Health Sciences. Social work students, staff and faculty can find several research resources in the University Libraries. The University library includes the Wegner Health Sciences Library in Sioux Falls.
By Brandie Reiner, NASW Arizona Chapter Executive Director
According to the legislative tracker maintained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a total of 456 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced during the current year. President Trump has enacted eight executive orders specifically aimed at individuals identifying as LGBTQ+. The level of hostility fostered by federal and legislative policies has escalated to such an extent that the United States Department of Homeland Security issued a warning regarding domestic terror threats directed at LGBTQ+ individuals as early as 2023.
The Rise of Political Violence Through Discriminatory Policies
When the stroke of a pen becomes as lethal as a bullet from a gun, political violence transcends physical assaults to include legal and policy-driven measures that undermine the rights and well-being of marginalized populations. Recent federal actions exemplify this by redefining sex and gender based on biological characteristics, effectively negating legal recognition of transgender and intersex individuals; restricting access to gender-affirming care by instructing the Department of Health and Human Services to remove protections for transgender health care; enforcing discriminatory educational policies that prohibit transgender students from participating in sports and utilizing restroom facilities corresponding to their identity; and diminishing protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in the military and federal employment by eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
Federal and legislative policies impacting LGBTQ+ individuals lead to severe consequences, worsening existing inequalities and discrimination. Recently, law enforcement in Tucson, Arizona, tried to arrest a cisgender Black female while she was using a Walmart restroom because, to them, she appeared to masculine to use a women’s restroom. As reported by the GLAAD ALERT Desk, incidents of violence against LGBTQ+ individuals, fueled by public misinformation and false police reports, have surged since June 2022, totaling over 2,242 incidents nationwide.
Our transgender youth, who already confront disproportionately high rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality due to systemic discrimination, face intensified mental health risks because of these measures. Restrictions imposed on gender-affirming care neglect established medical consensus, compelling many individuals to pursue unsafe or unregulated alternatives. LGBTQ+ youth experience increased bullying, discrimination, and obstacles to affirming environments within educational institutions, which contribute to elevated dropout rates and homelessness, thus further entrenching their social and economic marginalization.
Research conducted by The Trevor Project emphasizes the significant influence of state policies on the well-being and mobility of LGBTQ+ youth, thereby highlighting the urgent necessity to address these policy assaults. Their findings indicate that 45 percent of LGBTQ+ youth reported adverse effects on their mental health due to restrictive state laws, while 35 percent contemplated relocation as a result of these policies. This observation corresponds with wider concerns regarding the mental health crisis, health care inequities, and social marginalization experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals.
When discriminatory policies establish hostile environments, they not only exacerbate mental health outcomes but also disrupt stability, compelling numerous young individuals to leave their homes in pursuit of safety and acceptance. These findings accentuate the imperative for policies that affirm and safeguard LGBTQ+ individuals rather than perpetuate harm.
The emergence of discriminatory policies targeting LGBTQ+ individuals constitutes a direct manifestation of political violence. Further exacerbating our country’s mental health crises, health care disparities, and social marginalization. These policies provoke such inhospitable conditions that numerous LGBTQ+ youth endure profound distress, with some contemplating relocation as a means of escaping potential harm.
By institutionalizing discrimination through legislation, policymakers effectively weaponize legal frameworks to systematically undermine the rights, dignity, and safety of marginalized communities. This entrenched harm highlights the pressing necessity for advocacy and policy reforms aimed at mitigating political violence, safeguarding LGBTQ+ individuals, and fostering a society grounded in equity and inclusion.
How can social workers help?
As social workers, we hold a professional and ethical obligation to participate in political advocacy, given that systemic policies have a direct effect on the individuals and communities we serve. Challenges encountered by the clients and communities we serve, including access to health care, inadequate social safety nets, lack of anti-discrimination protections, and issues in criminal justice reform, largely arise from legislative shortcomings.
Through engagement in policymaking, be it voting, lobbying, holding public office, or rallying grassroots support, social workers can influence legislation that fosters social justice, equity, and human rights. Political involvement is integral to social work; it is a vital component of the profession’s goal to confront oppression and champion systemic changes that benefit our clients and communities.
Now, more than ever, we call upon you to join us in meeting the country in this pivotal moment, to rise against injustice and to create the “good trouble” necessary to dismantle oppressive systems and build a more just and equitable society.
While it’s common knowledge that tobacco use increases the risk of cancer, under half of Americans are aware that even low amounts of alcohol use are a leading preventable cause of at least seven types of cancer.
Every year, alcohol use contributes to nearly 100,000 cancer cases and about 20,000 cancer deaths, according to a recent advisory from the former U.S. Surgeon General. Notably, drinking even small amounts of alcohol increases the risk of breast cancer. Another study found that men and women who have one drink a day were 40% more likely than those who did not drink to develop mouth cancer.
For women, alcohol use poses the additional risk of prenatal alcohol exposure, a leading preventable cause of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs). People with FASDs can have lifelong effects, including problems with learning, behavior, and physical development. Similar to alcohol and cancer risk, there is no known safe amount of alcohol to consume if a woman is pregnant or might be pregnant. Alcohol can cause problems for a developing baby throughout pregnancy, including before a woman knows she’s pregnant. In addition, all types of alcohol are harmful, including wine, beer, and liquor.
This Alcohol Awareness Month, social workers can dispel common myths about drinking, including the belief that there is a safe time, amount, or amount of alcohol to drink while pregnant. For a healthy pregnancy, avoiding alcohol and other substances is the safest thing to do. And if a client is drinking while pregnant, every day counts. The sooner the drinking stops, the better for the baby.
The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and NASW Foundation are partners with the Health Behavior Research and Training Institute at The University of Texas at Austin Steve Hicks School of Social Work in a national initiative to prevent alcohol- and other substance-exposed pregnancy. This Centers for Disease Control and Prevention effort puts social work at the center of prevention practice, along with cross-discipline partners, in the FASD National Partner Network.
__________________________________________
Article by Diana Ling, MA, Senior Program Manager; and Anna Mangum, MSW, MPH, Senior Health Strategist; Health Behavior Research and Training Institute, Steve Hicks School of Social Work, The University of Texas at Austin.
__________________________________________
This initiative, Engaging Social Workers in Preventing Alcohol- and Other Substance-Exposed Pregnancies, is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as part of a financial assistance award totaling $913,610 with 100 percent funded by CDC/HHS. The contents are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement by, CDC/HHS, or the U.S. Government.
By Mel Wilson, NASW Senior Policy Adviser
The Trump Administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members is both legally and morally questionable. The use of this centuries-old wartime law bypasses due process and violates constitutional protections by allowing for detention and deportation without court proceedings.
Entrance to Manzanar, a California camp where Japanese Americans were imprisoned during World War II.
Applying the Alien Enemies Act also sets a dangerous precedent that distorts the original intent of the law by labeling migrants as enemy combatants in a nonexistant war.
The televised spectacle of 260 shackled young Venezuelan men being herded off to a high security El Salvador mega-prison was meant to shock the public and impress Trump’s MAGA base. In reality, the image represented a real time example of denial of due process and equal protection under the law, and raised significant questions of human rights violations.
While the deportees are Venezuelans, they were transported and imprisoned without charges under the cover of darkness to El Salvador. However, the larger and more critical question about the “gang member” deportation operation is its legality. The Alien Enemies Act was passed in 1798 with the explicit purpose of being used during a declared war against “invaders” from a nation at war with the United States.
This law has only been invoked three times in American history – during the War of 1812, World War I, and most infamously during World War II when Japanese Americans were imprisoned in internment camps . The internment was such an injustice that Japanese Americans were awarded an apology and reparations by Congress in 1988.
The Alien Enemies Act was meant to be used in time of war, not to combat “gangs”
The common thread that connects each of the three previous applications of the Act is that, at the time of their invocation, there was an actual declared war, which, according to Constitutional law experts, means that applying the Act in those cases was supported by law.
On the other hand, many of the same experts have doubts about the legality of applying the Act to justify the Venezuelan “gang member” roundups and deportations. Their position is that the terms “declared war,” invasion,” “predatory incursion,” and “by a foreign power” are very specific and relatively unambiguous. Using those guidelines, the general consensus is that the rounding up and deportation of the Venezuelan “gang members” do not pass the legality test.
Aside from the legal issues, other aspects of this action are disturbing. This includes, of course, due process violations associated with the apprehension and detention of the men. The fact a U.S. District Court judge placed a 14-day temporary restraining order on any further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act raises the possibility the Trump Administration will be forced to justify use of the Alien Enemies Act. The final outcome of the challenge to the administration’s actions is still to be determined, but the judge’s management of this important case gives us hope.
Administration’s rounding up of gang members is a human rights violation
The rounding up, forcible deportation, and imprisonment of Venezuelan gang members in El Salvador can and should be considered human rights violations. The United Nations’ definition of human rights violations includes,“When a state engages in human rights violations, various actors can be involved such as police, judges, prosecutors, government officials, and more. The violation can be physically violent in nature, such as police brutality, while rights such as the right to a fair trial can also be violated, where no physical violence is involved.”
The treatment of the Venezuelan so-called gang member falls squarely within that definition as evidenced by the following facts:
The Trump Administration is distracting public from the truth
The Trump Administration has gone to great lengths to depict the detainees as “monsters” and” violent criminals” without offering solid proof. This tactic of demonization is designed to distract the American public from the truth that the government’s actions went beyond human rights laws and convention.
Even if the language used to describe the Venezuelan deportees has some truth, the detainee’s past behaviors – no matter how reprehensible – do not give the United States or Salvadoran governments license to deny their basic human rights. That said, it must be noted that the Trump Administration has admitted many of those apprehended do not have criminal records. All of which makes their treatment even more disgraceful.
The questions about the administration’s policy are multi-dimensional. First and foremost, what will be the fate of the 260 men who remain in what can only be described as a hellhole? As of this writing, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not released the names of the men being held, although some have been identified by family members who recognized them from the videos released to the media.
What is being done to help the detainees?
The next important question is, what can be done to respond to this travesty of justice and prevent it from happening again?
There is hope a lawsuit could lead to release of the detained Venezuelans.
The ACLU and other members of the immigration rights community brought the lawsuit that challenged the Trump Administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.
As referred to earlier, a federal judge ruled in ACLU’s favor by issuing a temporary restraining order preventing the administration from further using the act to deport migrants.
The hope is that the court will rule that the Trump Administration misapplied the original intent of the Alien Enemies Act, which should result in the release of the Venezuelans from the El Salvador prison.
However, that particular legal outcome does not resolve the Trump Administration’s penchant for disregarding and seeking to circumvent the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection provisions.
Since its day-one pronouncement of a mass deportation policy, the administration has taken a “by any means necessary” approach to achieving its mass deportation objectives. That includes embracing dubious and extra-legal measures such as family detention and deportation, use of the American military for domestic situations, and of course invoking the Alien Enemies Act.
All of which dictates that the immigration justice and human rights community must be hypervigilant about monitoring the administration’s actions and, more importantly, be prepared to mobilize to head off abuses.