Joanne Giannini is a freelance writer and a former state representative from Providence, 1994-2011.

We can fight many things in life.  We as a society and human race have cured diseases, fought wars, put men on the moon and have made strides in all areas of human life. We all fight the good fight to protect and preserve our family and lives.

But the good fight continues when I read the bills introduced in the General Assembly by Sen. Tiara Mack and Rep. Edith Ajello to decriminalize prostitution and legalize its many activities. The bills that were introduced in both the House and Senate chambers would promote sex trafficking, prostitution and human trafficking.  

Before October 2009, prostitution indoors was legal in Rhode Island and the state was considered as a safe haven for sex trafficking and sexual exploitation.

In 2006, I filed the state’s first bill to ban human trafficking. Massage parlors were popping up all over Providence and stories were being reported in the news. The living conditions of the mostly young Asian girls working in the parlors were deplorable.  As I have said so many times before, they were living like pets in a cage, living in one room with mattresses on the floor and cooking on sterno. Many were brought here from other countries and promised a better life.  What they didn’t bargain for was a life of sexual exploitation, abuse, disease and, possibly, death.

More: Is it time to legalize prostitution in RI? The arguments for and against

There were about 30 illegal brothels posing as massage parlors throughout the state.  Young girls were being trafficked here from neighboring states for sex.  It was Rhode Island’s dirty little secret.  

It took years to pass legislation to ban human trafficking for sex and forced labor, prostitution, and minors working in the adult entertainment industry.  It wasn’t a popular issue and the many forces making big money weren’t happy at all.  And now still they are trying to return to the dark days when Rhode Island was the only state other than Nevada to have legal indoor prostitution.

Finally, in October of 2009, in a special House session, we passed three important bills to become law:

1. A bill to ban indoor prostitution in Rhode Island.
2. An amendment to the 2008 human trafficking bill, which not only banned human trafficking for sexual exploitation but banned trafficking for forced labor. It also created a human trafficking task force which was made up of a diverse group of health specialists, law enforcement agencies, human service agencies and various women’s groups to provide services to victims of trafficking.
3. A bill to ban minors from working in the adult entertainment industry after young teens were found working in strip clubs.

Now, numerous bills have been filed in both the House and Senate chambers which would return Rhode Island’s dirty little secret.

The bills would fully decriminalize the sex trade in Rhode Island, including acts of pimping, purchasing sex, and brothels. The move not only threatens the well-being of vulnerable women and children throughout the state, but it will also increase sex trafficking throughout the region. 

Specifically, the bills:

• Decriminalize pimping.
• Decriminalize sex buying. 
• Decriminalize brothels.  
• Position Rhode Island as a regional sex tourism destination once again.

More: Political Scene: From sex workers to shoreline access, there’s a legislative study

It’s 2024, and we are still fighting the good fight to stop sexual predators from exploiting young women, children and young men. We are still hearing the voices from victims who cried for help and tell their heart-wrenching stories of sexual abuse, drugs and sickness.

It saddens me that the bills’ supporters don’t hear the victims’ voices, but only the voices of those who will make money on the backs of the victims if these bills are passed.

I continue to add my voice to stop the passage of this legislation, and I hope you will do the same. Please call your state representative and tell them to vote no on these bills.

(WJAR) — Multiple bears wandering on yards were caught on camera in Rhode Island.

A Coventry man caught this black bear roaming his front yard Thursday night.

“It was definitely a surprise to see a bear on our front porch,” Josh Dominikoski said.

An unlikely guest was spotted on Dominikoski’s front porch.

“We kind of opened the door a little bit and he ran off,” he said.

A black bear was caught on camera simply minding his own business.

“He triggered our side camera and that kind of spooked him,” Dominikoski said.

The bear slowly creeped around the Coventry home.

At one point, the bear even made direct eye contact with the camera, looking seemingly unfazed.

Dominikoski said after 20 years living at this home, he’s never seen anything like this.

“It was interesting to be able to see it in person up close like that – once in a lifetime experience,” Dominikoski said.

Another bear was sighted in Charlestown on a woman’s backyard overnight.

Robin Cichy in Charlestown shared video with NBC 10 of another bear sighting, this time in her backyard.

“I thought it was very close to the house and it looked like a pretty good size,” Cichy said.

She shared photos of a possible print left behind, and her bird feeder crushed.

Likely left the bear on the prowl for a late-night snack

“We walk our dog out in the yard so it’s a little concerning. When we do go out, we make a lot of noise because we don’t want to surprise him,” Cichy said.

This type of behavior is normal for bears, according to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.

The agency encourages homeowners to secure all food or trash, and remove bird feeders when bears are active.

If you see one, back away slowly. Make yourself big and loud if things get grizzly.

“It’s pretty frightening, you don’t expect that to happen so close to your home,” Cichy said.

Since his first weeks on the job, Gov. Ned Lamont has urged his fellow Democrats to embrace a “debt diet” and curb borrowing where possible.

But the administration wouldn’t say this week whether it would back legislative leaders’ plans to borrow to effectively cover operating expenses in the next budget — creating a significant hole to be tackled one year from now.

“Gov. Lamont is committed to an honestly balanced budget in [fiscal year] ’25. Any adjustments that impact any level of funding must ensure the budget remains balanced,” Chris Collibee, the governor’s budget spokesman, told The Connecticut Mirror this week.

At first glance, this answer appears to close off options for Democratic legislators, who want to add $300 million to $400 million to a preliminary $26 billion budget for the next fiscal year that already exceeds the state’s spending cap by $30 million.

But borrowing happens outside of the budget. The same applies to spending federal pandemic relief grants. The majority Democrats’ latest plan to bolster the next state budget beyond what the spending cap allows centers on those two areas. It goes like this:

• Step 1: Identify projects and programs currently paid for with the last vestiges of Connecticut’s $2.8 billion American Rescue Plan Act allocation from Congress.

• Step 2: Replace those ARPA dollars with borrowed funds.

• Step 3: Reassign ARPA dollars to higher education, social services and other core programs.

Emergency federal relief can be spent outside of the spending cap, which tries to keep most expenditure growth in line with changes in household income and inflation.

This approach effectively would circumvent the spending cap and other fiscal principles that Lamont frequently espouses.

But borrowing for ongoing expenses adds an interest cost normally reserved for capital projects.

The administration repeatedly chastised public colleges and university systems this past winter for using ARPA dollars for operating costs rather than for one-time purposes such as paying down debt. Yet this latest Democratic strategy would pump more temporary dollars into ongoing programs.

Lamont recently upgraded his estimate of ARPA dollars available for use next fiscal year from $56 million to $200 million — much closer to the $300 million minimum sought by Democratic legislators.

This week, House Speaker Matt Ritter told the CT Mirror that legislators hoped to replace $75 million in ARPA funds earmarked for municipal school HVAC-system upgrades with $75 million in borrowing.

Does Lamont’s upgraded $200 million ARPA tally reflect this proposed supplanting of pandemic grants with borrowing? Could available ARPA be expanded to $300 million or more by identifying more ARPA-funded projects and instead paying for them by borrowing the money?

“The administration will not comment on what is or is not included [in the ARPA tally] until we have had further conversations with the General Assembly,” Collibee said.

Democrats couldn’t pull off such a swap without the governor’s cooperation, given that any bonding bill would go to Lamont’s desk for a signature.

“I think [Lamont] will be fine,” with Democrats’ plans for the upcoming fiscal year, the speaker said earlier this week. “He may not agree with how we spend it, but I think he’ll agree [with] how we get it.”

When asked if Lamont would sign such a maneuver into law, Collibee wouldn’t say, though he acknowledged it would increase the problems state officials would have to solve next year.

“Minimizing structural holes is always a goal,” Collibee added. “Whatever is agreed to may have to be accounted for in future budgets.”

Lamont has been a vocal advocate for the spending cap and other budget controls that he and other supporters have dubbed the state’s “fiscal guardrails.” These controls have helped state government amass a record-setting $3.3 billion rainy day fund and use an extra $7.7 billion in surpluses to pay down pension debt.

But critics say these controls are forcing the state to save excessively and are dangerously shortchanging core programs.

The University of Connecticut and the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities system both have ordered significant tuition and fee hikes for the next academic year and are planning cutbacks to close deficits. Nonprofit agencies that deliver the bulk of state-sponsored social services say they lose $480 million annually because state payments haven’t kept pace with inflation, leaving them unable to meet demand.

When the CT Mirror published a series in late January demonstrating the impact of huge new state savings policies on core programs, Lamont insisted the guardrails were working fine and that legislators had to make tough-but-necessary spending choices.

Leaders of the Republican minorities in the House and Senate said Thursday that Lamont can’t have it both ways. He can’t be the public champion of the guardrails while facilitating a legislative end-run around the system.

Republicans already are frustrated that Democrats have said they won’t address hundreds of millions of dollars in projected holes in the next state budget, involving eroding sales tax receipts, cost overruns in Medicaid and other programs, and insufficient appropriations to cover required pension fund contributions.

If Lamont helps Democrats borrow for operating expenses, even as they ignore budget holes, the GOP said, it’s a big financial mistake.

“Right now, the governor is a bit of a deer in the headlights, and I think they’re trying to cover up that [ARPA] money,” said House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora of North Branford, who predicted state finances will be struggling 12 months from now when ARPA funds have been exhausted. “I don’t foresee a soft landing.”

“It’s bad fiscal policy, and it’s counter to what this governor ran for reelection on two years ago,” said Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding of Brookfield.

Staff writer Mark Pazniokas contributed to this story.

Connecticut Mirror is a content partner of States Newsroom. Read the original version here.