(CNN) -- When Vanessa Hudgens' naked photos hit the Internet, the "High School Musical" star quickly apologized. But sending nude or seminude pictures, a phenomenon known as sexting, is a fast-growing trend among teens.

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen & Unplanned Pregnancy, a private nonprofit group whose mission is to protect children, and CosmoGirl.com, surveyed nearly 1,300 teens about sex and technology. The result: 1 in 5 teens say they've sexted even though the majority know it could be a crime.

Phillip Alpert found out the hard way. He had just turned 18 when he sent a naked photo of his 16-year-old girlfriend, a photo she had taken and sent him, to dozens of her friends and family after an argument. The high school sweethearts had been dating for almost 2½ years. "It was a stupid thing I did because I was upset and tired and it was the middle of the night and I was an immature kid," says Alpert.

Orlando, Florida, police didn't see it that way. Alpert was arrested and charged with sending child pornography, a felony to which he pleaded no contest but was later convicted. He was sentenced to five years probation and required by Florida law to register as a sex offender.

"You will find me on the registered sex offender list next to people who have raped children, molested kids, things like that, because I sent child pornography," says Alpert in disbelief, explaining, "You think child pornography, you think 6-year-old, 3-year-old little kids who can't think for themselves, who are taken advantage of. That really wasn't the case."

Alpert's attorney Larry Walters agrees and he's fighting to get Alpert removed from Florida's sex offender registry. The law lags behind the technology, he says. "Sexting is treated as child pornography in almost every state and it catches teens completely offguard because this is a fairly natural and normal thing for them to do. It is surprising to us as parents, but for teens it's part of their culture."

In many states, like Florida, if a person is convicted of a crime against children, it automatically triggers registration to the sex offender registry. Thirty-eight states include juvenile sex offenders in their sex offender registries. Alaska, Florida and Maine will register juveniles only if they are tried as adults. Indiana registers juveniles age 14 and older. South Dakota registers juveniles age 15 and older. Most states allow public access to sex offender registries via the Internet and anyone with a computer can locate registered sex offenders in their neighborhoods.

A number of states have elected not to provide Internet access to registries; Florida is not one of them. There is no hiding for Alpert, whose neighbors, he says, all know. "I am a sex offender. If you type my name into the search engine online, you will find me."

As sexting incidents pop up around the country, prosecutors are trying to come to terms with how these cases should be handled. George Skumanick Jr., a district attorney from Wyoming County, Pennsylvania, took a novel approach when 20 students from Tunkhannock High School were caught allegedly sexting.

He gave them a choice: probation and re-education classes or be charged with sexual abuse of a minor. "An adult would go to prison for this," says Skumanick, adding, "If you take the photo, you've committed a crime. If you send the photo, you've committed a different crime, but essentially the same crime."

Critics, however, say child pornography laws on the possession or dissemination of graphic images were never meant to apply to teen sexting and that these teenagers usually have no criminal intent when they send pictures to each other.

In light of this latest news, here is my question to you:-

Question:- Should teenagers be prosecuted for "sexting"?

Please leave your comments expressing your opinions.

(CNN) -- The events of the past week have been unprecedented in the auto industry and in the annals of American business.

As the events have unfolded, there is the strong implication from the administration's automotive task force that Chapter 11 bankruptcy, followed by restructuring and "cleansing" of General Motors' balance sheet, is a potential scenario in the ongoing efforts to keep the giant automaker alive.

GM's new chief executive, Fritz Henderson, acknowledged as much on CNN Sunday. "You can't rule options off the table. So you basically say we will spend time to try to get it [done] outside of bankruptcy. But if we can't, we're not going to compromise our goals. We're going to get it done inside our bankruptcy. Our preferred approach is still to do it outside, but you can't rule out going in."

Over the past few weeks pundits of all stripes have appeared on financial news networks suggesting that entering Chapter 11 is GM's only way to future viability. "Get on with it," they say, and save us the agony.

It is the only way, they argue, General Motors can get relief from its immediate cash-flow issues, tear up or substantially modify its union contracts, dump unnecessary brands, close plants and "right-size" its operations. But those pundits who propose Chapter 11 fail to acknowledge that General Motors is a consumer-facing company whose success or failure is in the hands of millions of average Americans.

This group will decide to buy or not buy General Motors vehicles based on what they know, hear and even feel about GM's future. As talk of imminent bankruptcy swirls in the press, the news they hear about General Motors certainly is not reassuring, as they consider which brand to buy.

In light of this latest news, here is my question to you:-

Question:- Should the government try to save General Motors from going bankrupt?

Please leave comments expressing your point of view.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Job losses continued to mount in March and unemployment hit a 25-year high, according to the government's latest reading on the battered labor market Friday.

Employers trimmed 663,000 jobs from their payrolls last month, roughly in line with forecasts of a loss of 658,000 jobs, according to economists surveyed by Briefing.com.

For the first three months of the year, 2 million jobs have been lost, and 5.1 million jobs have been lost since the start of 2008.

To put the three-month loss in context, if no more jobs are lost over the next nine months, 2009 would still be the fourth worst year for job losses since the government started tracking the number of workers in 1939.

March's monthly loss is up slightly from the loss of 651,000 jobs in February, although it's less than the number of jobs lost in January. That figure was revised up to a loss of 741,000 jobs -- which now stands as the biggest monthly drop in 59 years.

More big job losses likely lie ahead, said Tig Gilliam, chief executive of Adecco Group North America, a unit of the world's largest employment staffing firm. He said many of the layoffs announced in recent months have yet to be implemented.

He predicted that between 600,000 and 700,000 more jobs will be lost in April, and that the best people can hope for is that the pace of job losses starts to slow down heading into summer.

The unemployment rate climbed to 8.5% from 8.1% in February, in line with economists' forecasts. It was the highest since November, 1983.


In light of this latest data, here is my question to you:-

Question:- What do you think of the latest 8.5% unemployment rate?

Please leave your comments expressing your point of view.

LONDON - Concluding his first international summit, President Barack Obama hailed agreements at the emergency meeting of world powers Thursday as a "turning point in our pursuit of global economic recovery." But he cautioned, "There are no guarantees."

Obama said the heads of industrial countries that met in London agreed on "unprecedented steps to restore growth and prevent a crisis like this from happening again."

He spoke shortly after G-20 leaders pledged an additional $1.1 trillion in financing to the International Monetary Fund and other global institutions and declared a crackdown on tax havens and hedge funds. The leaders announced the creation of a supervisory body to flag problems in the global financial system — but did not satisfy calls from the U.S. and others for new stimulus measures.

Despite that failure, OBama called the one-day London gathering "very productive" and historic because of the scope of the challenges the world faces in righting the economic crisis that's wreaking havoc on virtually every country.

In light of this latest news, here is my question to you:-

Question:- Do you think the G20 Summit will help improve the world economy?

Please leave your comments and thoughts expressing your point of view.

I would like to inform our readers to be very careful of a Computer Worm 'Conficker' set to be active on April 1, 2009. Please do not open any suspicious or unknown e-mails and please update your anti-virus softwares.

WASHINGTON - President Obama ’s plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan came after an internal debate in which Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. warned against getting into a political and military quagmire, while military advisers argued that the Afghanistan war effort could be imperiled without even more troops.

All of the president’s advisers agreed that the primary goal in the region should be narrow — taking aim at Al Qaeda , as opposed to the vast attempt at nation-building the Bush administration had sought in Iraq. The question was how to get there.

The commanders in the field wanted a firmer and long-term commitment of more combat troops beyond the 17,000 that Mr. Obama had already promised to send , and a pledge that billions of dollars would be found to significantly expand the number of Afghan security forces.

In announcing a plan on Friday that could be his signature foreign policy effort, Mr. Obama said that he would send more troops — some 4,000 — but stipulated that they would not carry out combat missions, and would instead be used to train the Afghan Army and the national police. He left himself open to the possibility of sending more as the situation warrants.

In light of this news, here is my question to you:-

Q:- Do you support President Obama's decision of sending more troops to Afghanistan?

Please leave your comments and opinions.

(CNN) Sandra Giustina is a 61-year-old uninsured American. For three years she saved her money in hopes of affording heart surgery to correct her atrial fibrillation. "They [U.S. hospitals] told me it would be about $175,000, and there was just no way could I come up with that," Giustina said.

So, with a little digging online, she found several high quality hospitals vying for her business, at a fraction of the U.S. cost. Within a month, she was on a plane from her home in Las Vegas, Nevada, to New Delhi, India. Surgeons at Max Hospital fixed her heart for "under $10,000 total, including travel."

Giustina is just one of millions around the world journeying outside their native land for medical treatment, a phenomenon known as "medical tourism." Experts say the trend in global health care has just begun. Next year alone, an estimated 6 million Americans will travel abroad for surgery, according to a 2008 Deloitte study. "Medical care in countries such as India, Thailand and Singapore can cost as little as 10 percent of the cost of comparable care in the United States," the report found.

In light of this latest news, here is my question to you:-

Do you think its safe for American patients to go abroad for their treatment?

Please leave your comments and opinions by clicking on 'Comments' link at the top right corner.