Societal Prevention Demands Personal Responsibility

How we interact with the community, including how we vote, matters; and, such choices have consequences.

Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4:9)

Most turn a blind eye—some for the sake of avoiding inconvenience, others out of apathy. Nevertheless, the evidence is apparent. Most do not know, and show little to no desire to understand, the daily realities in the underbelly of society, the plight of the poor, exploited, and victimized; truthfully, it is a dark, emotionally burdensome, and wildly inconvenient conversation. And, while there are a few who see in part and complain, there are even fewer who take action. Again, the evidence is apparent: in how we vote, in what we prioritize, in how we invest, in what we consider to be a good use of time, and in what we decide is and is not our responsibility.

A few weeks ago, while in a very high crime corner of the city, I was approached by an elderly woman; she is a neighborhood local who enjoys simply watching the birds in the morning from a particular spot of minimal shade in the shopping center parking lot. She approached me in desperation because she saw something strange (this word carries a different kind of weight in this neighborhood). On the other side of the parking lot, there was a homeless woman, approximately 30-years-old, who was observably impaired on an illicit substance (unfortunately, this is not strange for the area). But, she was also with a young girl who was maybe 10-years-old. Middle-aged homeless men, engaging in open-air drug use, were beginning to gather around the woman and girl—the woman welcomed it.

When this elderly woman approached me, I had not noticed this peculiar scene; I had another agenda, other plans, other matters occupying my mind. But, I was convicted by her genuine concern. So, I stayed. And, as I observed, cars began to approach, engage in “private” conversations, then leave. In my growing concern, I did two things: I called the police department, and I began searching through various missing persons databases for a child that even remotely matched the general description. The 10-year-old girl was unknown to me, and I could not find anyone nationwide that matched her description; this, obviously, does not mean that this girl was not in trouble—it just means I could not find confirmed evidence. And, for the sake of absolute clarity, I did not witness, other than the common and rampant open-air drug use, a definite crime. When the responding officer arrived on scene, he only stayed for approximately 15-seconds. As he drove into the parking lot, the drug using men scattered, and the woman made herself scarce; the officer drove over to the girl, rolled down his window, asked her something, and then left. He didn’t even get out of the car.

When the officer left, the men returned, and I stayed to continue watching—praying as to what could be done, if anything. The group, knowing that police presence meant that someone was watching, gathered their items and left. I’m not sure what I expected him to do—other than more.

To be fair, there was likely not much the officer could have done; law enforcement officers often have their hands tied by embarrassingly limited resources, twisted priorities of governing officials, and the intentional lack of actionable legislation—especially in this particular case involving loitering.

Furthermore, enforcement of infringements to sections (1), (2), (3), and (5) only result in a class 3 misdemeanor* punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $500. Section (4), loitering in a school zone and refusing to leave after given a reasonable request, can result in class 1 misdemeanor.*

While Arizona has lax loitering laws, other states, with voter approval, are officially abandoning the concept almost entirely with legislation like California’s S.B.357.

At this time, it would be unhelpful to assume the motivations of the bill’s advocates; however, the results have been clear. Stephany Powell, director of law enforcement training at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation in Washington, stated that the number of both (1) juveniles in California soliciting for prostitution and (2) “buyers” loitering around them have doubled since even before Governor Newsom signed S.B.357 in 2023.*

S.B.357 has resulted in the restriction of law enforcement’s ability to engage (to protect and serve) in what should be considered extremely obvious circumstances—even including, according to law enforcement officers, situations in which young juveniles wearing lingerie are seen walking the streets at night and approaching vehicles for conversation. And, again, this was approved by California voters; the people responded in favor of S.B.357.

I wish it could be said that such legislation was contained within California’s borders; but, other states are following suite: Washington (S.B.5226), Illinois (H.B.2135), Nevada (S.B.236), and New York (Loitering Law Repeal).

In Arizona, voters were likewise deceived—or so I hope deceived. Proposition 139 received 2,000,287 votes and passed with 61.61% of the vote.* This resulted in the amendment of the Arizona Constitution to provide for the fundamental right to abortion. It was presented to the voters as unrestricted access to reproductive health care, and was praised as the securing of rights and freedom for women. In reality, it secured “the right to an abortion after fetal viability if it is done to protect the life, physical, or mental health of the pregnant individual, in the judgment of a treating health care professional.”* This expansion, in addition to stating “pregnant individual” instead of woman or mother, lists no restriction based on viability; it also silenced parents by making their voice irrelevant—decisions can be made at the judgment of the large umbrella group known as health care professionals (doctors, nurses, social workers, school counselors, etc.). And, this broader reading of the term “health care professional” is not out of context with the language used because, regardless of viability, abortion decisions can be made for mental health concerns. And, again, no parental involvement is required.

While it may, on the surface, seem as though Proposition 139 is inconsequential to the MissingNoMore mission, please consider the implications of expanded and unrestricted abortion access without parental consent. Previously, health care professionals (counselors, social workers, nurses, doctors, etc.) were trained and encouraged to be vigilant to notice indicator tattoos and circumstances associated with trafficking and exploitation; now, however, even if such indicators are present, a pregnant juvenile has the protected right to abort a pregnancy that may have been the result of an exploitation without investigation. And, “this right cannot be interfered with unless justified by a compelling state interest.”* Furthermore, “a compelling state interest is [only] defined as a law or regulation enacted for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of the individual seeking abortion care that does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision-making” (emphasis added).* The perpetrator can cover his tracks, and the exploited victim has no systematic safety railings; then, the exploitation continues.

Of course, there is no possible way to provide numerical data to prove the prevalence of such concerns; but, the impossibility of knowing should serve as a further concern. But, this is what we voted for in an overwhelming majority; 2,000,287 Arizona residents supported it—with no concern for the impact it will have on the sexual exploitation of girls.

In the story of Ruth, we are introduced to Boaz; he is a man who saw a struggling woman, a foreigner, and, at personal cost, took care of her. Ruth was not his responsibility—Boaz made her struggles his responsibility. He did not echo the sentiments of Cain: “am I this woman’s—this stranger’s—keeper?” Instead, he exemplified the second greatest commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18).