After the tragedy in Florida, I sat in my office at Brunswick High School and cried. I am the school social work intern, studying for a master of science in social administration at Case Western Reserve University.

On a daily basis I work with emotionally disturbed students who have behavioral problems that might lead to expulsion and violence.

As school social workers, it is our job to recognize mental illness, work with the student, and make referrals to connect them with experts who can prevent not only expulsion, but the destructive behavior that follows these individuals into adulthood.

I have no doubt that the school social worker in Parkland, Fla., attempted to help Nikolas Cruz the same way that I try to help my students. The issue is there is just one school social worker for all of the nearly 3,000 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Now turn to Ohio where there is no requirement for social workers in schools. This policy choice risks tragedy. Who is there to provide intervention to students who desperately need help? Should it be already overburdened teachers and guidance counselors?

Ohio needs to make it a requirement to have social workers — at the very least, one certified social worker per school district. This simple step could dramatically reduce or even prevent tragedies.

We must find a way to do this. Paying for school social workers and the intervention they provide is far better than having the young and so innocent pay with their lives.

Lindsey Neag

Copley

Safe, thankful in New Franklin

Our local law enforcement and citizenry should be acknowledged for their swift and decisive actions relating to the former Manchester student who allegedly posted a video threatening an administrator at the high school. This came just days before the Florida high school massacre.

Thankfully, the “see something, do something’’ responsibility all of us should adopt may have saved innocent lives here.

Jerry Butcher

New Franklin

Procedure devalues life

Regarding the Jan. 29 column “Don’t rob women of choices,” the author neglected to state what dilation and evacuation (D&E) dismemberment abortions are: a grisly procedure in which the abortionist uses steel instruments to dismember and extract the living preborn child piece by piece from a woman’s womb.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, widely considered the swing vote on abortion cases, has himself described the procedure in a powerful way, when he wrote: “The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.”

In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court said, “No one would dispute that, for many, D&E is a procedure itself laden with the power to devalue human life.”

In her column, the author states: “Abortion bans like S.B. 145 have been found to be unconstitutional in all six states where they have been challenged.” She is wrong.

Eight states have passed a D&E by dismemberment ban on living preborn children. Two of those bans are in effect. Of the six that are being challenged, only two of them have had a decision handed down, and those two will be appealed and will have further hearings, so they are not final yet.

Patrick Kunklier

Fairlawn