Author Archives: Betsy Groth

Letter to the Editor: Sex Education Requires Different Materials for Preteen, Young Teen, Older Teen; Must ‘Get There’ via Practical, Civil Discussions

Posted on by
3

To the Editor:

Recently, a letter and petition has been circulating regarding the removal of several library holdings in the young adult section on sexual education reportedly aimed at 11 to 19 years of age. Both this group and their anti-censorship/anti-book banning are missing what should be the main point of this discussion. ( Full disclosure – as a third generation liberal, I am in the latter camp.)

As a pediatric nurse practitioner and developmental specialist, I have been providing sex education as well as gynecology care for decades. I have the experience as well as data to support the fact that sex education is very important. But providing materials supposing that what is good for 11-year-olds is good for 19-year-olds is pretty ridiculous.

There are at least three distinct developmental groups with very different needs in the area of sex education within the 11- to 19-year age span.

This is not about grandiose ideologies. The primary goal is how to keep our kids healthy both physically and emotionally.

It requires different materials for the preteen, young teen and older teen. I think we can all agree on these goals. We need to get there via practical and civil discussions.

As for sexual identity, the letter from our Congregational ministers was exactly on target. As adults, we need to tell our kids that they are great exactly how they are. And yes, I have the data to prove that that kind of acceptance helps keep kids healthy.

Sincerely,

Betsy Groth APRN,
Old Lyme.

Editor’s Note: The author is a Board Certified Pediatric Mental Health Specialist and Child & Family Advocate.

Letter to the Editor: Old Lyme BOF to Consider $28K Budget Request for Weapons for OL Police, No Justification for Purchase Discussed

Posted on by
19

To The Editor:

The Old Lyme Board of Finance is expected to vote this Tuesday, March 28, on the Town’s capital budget, and money requested by the Town Police for weapons and ammunition. Initially budgeted for $32,500, this was modified by First Selectman Tim Griswold to $28,500.

The Old Lyme [OL] Board of Selectmen [BOS] has never taken a vote on approving or recommending this, and the discussion was tabled at their Feb. 24 meeting to seek input from Trooper Matt Weber to gain clarity on this topic. To my knowledge, this has not happened, and it is unclear if it is ever going to happen. The agenda for the [OL BOS] Special Meeting on Monday lists this only in generic terms, “[Discussion of …] Recommendations to the Board of Finance”.

The budget request includes purchase of military style assault rifles, weapons of mass destruction designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. All this raises concerns for the militarization of our constabulary /police.

We are a contracted State Trooper town, and expend thousands for their trained officers and their military assault rifles to support us. Also this unsupported request leaves the Town open to significant costs associated with updating these weapons and safely disposing of retired weapons.

We, the people of OL, have not received any comprehensive explanation of the reason for and benefits of using our tax dollars to purchase weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, many residents probably do not know this is even being considered. If these purchases are being justified as protective for our school children, there is zero evidence for this. Also, can anyone remember a time in recent history that police with assault weapons were able to stop a shooter with an assault weapon? My research says no — [see this article]“He has a battle rifle”: Police feared Uvalde gunman’s AR-15

I would like to refer readers to the following LymeLine Op-Eds, as well as Letters to the Editor and reader comments, for background :

Peter Ewart 6/1/22 and Tom Soboleski 5/27/ 2022 (Op-Eds)
Betsy Groth 6/17/22 and 7/26/22 and Charlotte Scot 9/22//22 (Letters)

Sincerely,

Betsy Groth,
Old Lyme.

Editor’s Note: The author is a Pediatric Nurse Practitioner and Child Advocate, a Retired Lecturer at Yale School of Nursing, and a Member of CT Against Gun Violence.

Letter to the Editor: Armed Guards in Lyme-Old Lyme Schools — More Questions

Posted on by
10

To the Editor:

Does anyone, parents or voters, know yet how much more in taxes they will be forced to pay for the salaries and insurance coverage of armed guards in Region 18 schools? Region 18, OUR schools.

If this is public knowledge, I cannot find anything.

Nor can I find any information on whether the armed guards will also be present during after-school activities, including sports practices or games. Perhaps I missed something? I would think the liability insurance will be very high, since these guards are employees of Region 18 and due to the real risk of the guards accidentally shooting a parent, teacher, visitor or God forbid, a student.

I, for one, am unwilling to pay taxes for such a dangerous and ineffective initiative. Data, not “feelings” or political beliefs inform my opinion.

Superintendent Ian Neviaser rushed this through, with the help of the Region 18 Board of Education (BOE), despite parent opposition. Of note, there are no armed guards in the community he resides in, and where his own children attended school.

Demand answers from him and the BOE, and our selectmen and woman, Tim Griswold, Matt Ward and Martha Shoemaker. All can be contacted via email at first initial, last name ( no space) @oldlyme-ct.gov.

Sincerely,

Betsy Groth,
Old Lyme.
Pediatric Nurse Practitioner and child advocate 
Member GAGV ( CT Against Gun Violence)
Retired faculty, Yale School of Nursing

Letter to the Editor: Armed Security Guards in Lyme-Old Lyme Schools are Not the Solution to Gun Violence

Posted on by
9

To the Editor:

This past Wednesday, the Board of Education voted 7-2 to place armed guards at District 18 schools. Though many board members expressed reservations, including to NBC News, it passed.

I am submitting this letter as a child advocate and as a pediatric nurse practitioner withe certification and expertise in pediatric mental health. I am a parent and a community member. I have many friends and family in the teaching profession. I make my decisions based on data, not emotions. At the same time, it is impossible not to be emotional about children blown to unrecognizable bits. As a former pediatric critical care nurse, I have taken care of young gun violence victims, but have not been forced to bear witness to a massacre, as first responders have been.

I think after the tragic massacre in Uvalde, our immediate reaction is “do something, anything.” That something should not be armed guards at school. There is zero evidence that armed guards make schools safer, and plenty of evidence that they do NOT. The recent mass murderer in Buffalo was not deterred by an armed guard. This is anecdotal, but typical.

Placing armed guards in District 18 schools would be expensive and in no way is a solution to mass murders in school or elsewhere, and it would be a daily reminder to children that they are not safe. No one will be safe anywhere until gun laws are passed to ban assault weapons, enforce waiting periods and background checks.

Further, teenagers do not have developed frontal cortexes. This is the part of the brain responsible for judgement. They cannot control their impulses. They have no business owning lethal weapons.
Parents, teachers and school administrators who really want to protect children should relentlessly advocate for these changes.

Armed school guards are not even a bandaid, much less a solution.

My letter with this information as well as links to studies was submitted to the BOE before Wednesday’s meeting. It was not even mentioned in the discussion that night.

Sincerely,

Betsy Groth,
APRN (active); Faculty Yale School of Nursing (Retired); Member, CT Against Gun Violence,
Old Lyme.

Letter to the Editor: Clarifying the Contrasting Positions of Carney, Rubino on Critical Matters

Posted on by
4

To the Editor:

Human rights attorney Dave Rubino is challenging Devin Carney for the House of Representatives seat in the 23rd District.  Dave’s position on many social issues differs markedly from Devin’s.  As indicated on Dave’s campaign website, he supports:

  1. criminal justice reform;
  2. a strong social safety net;
  3. adequate paid family and medical leave; and
  4. a reasonable living wage. 

On the other hand, Devin voted AGAINST the following bills in the Connecticut General Assembly:

  • 2020–HB 6004, An Act Concerning Police Accountability;
  • 2019–SB 380, An Act Concerning the Use of Force and Pursuits by Police and Increasing Police Accountability and Transparency;
  • 2019—SB 1, An Act Concerning Paid Family and Medical Leave;
  • 2019—HB 5004, An Act increasing the Minimum Fair Wage; and
  • 2018—HB 5460, An Act Concerning Minimum Employee Wages for Providers of State-Administered Services for Persons with Intellectual Disabilities.

Please consider carefully which candidate’s positions more align with your own when you vote on November 3.

Sincerely,

Betsy Groth,
Old Lyme.