CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Will Health Care Reform Protect Your Reproductive Rights?Well, many of us thought this day would never come: the House of Representatives is finally prepared to vote on the Affordable Health Care for America Act. It's hard to understate the historic nature of this particular vote. President Roosevelt — the first one, in 1912 — campaigned on a promise of health care reform, and nearly 100 years later, a comprehensive health reform bill has yet to make it to the floor for a vote. If it comes to the floor for a vote — anti-choice lawmakers, led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), are threatening to use procedural maneuvers to derail health care reform over abortion. Pro-choice advocates had hoped beyond hope that abortion would be treated like any other health care service during health reform. Throughout their lives, women access a broad continuum of reproductive health care services, including contraceptive services, prenatal care, and abortion, and we asked for a principled approach to health care reform that would reflect that reality. But politics and ideology have made that impossible. Instead, lawmakers have crafted a compromise position, often referred to as the Capps Amendment, that would maintain the status quo and advance neither a pro- nor anti-choice agenda — and therefore convince enough anti-choice Democrats to vote for the bill to ensure its passage. So, the wonky details: the Capps Amendment would prohibit abortion from being included in the basic, standard health benefit package that insurance companies would have to make available under health care reform, but would require that at least one plan in the Exchange cover abortion and that at least one not cover abortion. It would also mandate that plans that do cover abortion segregate their funds and ensure that only private premiums (and not federal dollars) are used to cover abortion. The public plan would cover abortion in the case of rape, or incest, or when a woman's life is threatened by a pregnancy (the status quo for public funding for abortion care), and the Secretary of Health and Human Services would be allowed to determine whether the public plan could cover abortion in additional circumstances. The pro-choice community has accepted this compromise even though it is hard to swallow; it is less than what women need and deserve. But, the compromise is not enough for some anti-choice Democrats and Republicans. They want to use health care reform to impose unprecedented restrictions on women's access to abortion in the health care system. They wish to ban any plan that receives any federal dollars from covering abortion even though abortion funding would already come only from private funds under the current compromise. By attempting to ban plans from covering abortion, they intend to curtail access to abortion services even when a woman pays for her insurance with private funds and receives no federal subsidy. In other words, they want to take away women's access to health benefits they currently rely on. Because the House leadership may not allow an amendment to further limit abortion access, anti-choice members have threatened to vote against the Rule that would bring health care reform to the House floor. The Rule is the language setting the grounds for debate on a bill; unless the Rule passes, the bill cannot be considered. Or if that doesn't work, they may offer a "motion to recommit" on abortion that, if passed, would prohibit insurance companies in the Exchange from providing abortion coverage even if they want to. They are contemplating hijacking a whole bill with so much at stake for so many people over a health care service that should be a private decision between a woman and her doctor. <really big sigh> House Leadership has scheduled the health care reform vote for 6 p.m. on Saturday, November 7, but the debate might run into Sunday. So, we have until then to tell the House to support the Rule and oppose any and all attacks on reproductive rights in the health care reform bill. Please go to our Action Center, and call your Representative now.
Rays Of Sunlight in the House Judiciary CommitteeGood news on national security legislation. I know! I can hardly believe it myself! The USA Patriot Amendments Act was marked up this week in an epic House Judiciary Committee meeting that spanned two days. The bill, though a bit watered down, still managed to maintain some of its civil liberties protections including:
There are now a total of seven bills in Congress addressing the Patriot Act since three of the Act’s provisions are set to expire on December 31st. The USA Patriot Amendments Act is the best of the bunch that Congress is actively considering. We’ll be asking you for support on this bill, especially as it faces some stiff competition from a competing bill introduced by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes. That bill will likely be heading for its own markup in the next few weeks (though, that mark up will likely be closed to the public). For more great info on Patriot check out the Get FISA Right kids, Julian Sanchez at Cato and, of course, Marcy Wheeler over at Firedoglake. The House Judiciary Committee also managed to mark up the State Secrets Protection Act this week and, thankfully, left the bill largely intact. This bill was introduced early in the year after the Obama administration followed the Bush administration’s lead on claiming state secrets in our lawsuit against Jeppesen DataPlan for their role in “extraordinary rendition.” The government — unfortunately both past and present administrations now — has attempted to block several important lawsuits with an overbroad and improper assertion of “state secrets.” The ACLU considers the State Secrets Protection Act a must-pass bill that will narrow the scope of the state secrets privilege and could open the courthouse doors to people who have suffered real and legitimate harm by the government. The bill will likely see more movement in 2010. Expect to hear from us then.
Victory in Washington: Domestic Partnerships Win the Popular VoteAlthough the ballots are still being counted, last night news outlets called Washington State’s domestic partnership referendum in our favor! As of late Thursday, we were wining by 52 to 48 percent, a deficit the Seattle Times called “insurmountable” for the opponents of gay rights. Our success is exciting on a number of levels. First, because it means the benefits offered to domestic partners in Washington will be expanded to include all the same protections offered to married couples. It’s also a larger symbolic win — Washington is now the first state in the nation where same-sex relationship protections have been affirmatively approved by voters. And it’s a victory for organizing. Between the date the referendum was put on the ballot and Election Day, the Approve Referendum 71 campaign had only two months to educate and mobilize voters. Even with this condensed timeline, the campaign was successful in building a broad coalition of community faith, labor and business groups, and winning endorsements from newspapers across the region and from leading Northwest businesses including Google, Microsoft and Starbucks. It’s also exciting to look at this victory in terms of how far we’ve come in winning popular support for LGBT rights in Washington State. As Lurleen on Pam’s House Blend points out, the last time Washington voted on LGBT rights in 1997, on an initiative that would have created an employment non-discrimination law, garnered only 40 percent of the vote. Since then, Lurleen notes, nearly every Washington county has shown an increase in pro-equality voting. That’s terrific news — but we still have a long ways to go. As demonstrated by the county-by-county results for Ref. 71, support for domestic partnerships, while strong in the urban, coastal areas of the state, fell off significantly on the east side of the Cascades.
I had the opportunity last month to film a series of videos for the Ref. 71 Campaign that featured the personal testimonials from Washington domestic partners, and in shooting the ads, I intentionally searched for testimonials from less urban parts of the state. If we’re going to move forward in the fight for equality, we can’t just rely on King County. We need to start winning hearts and minds in the rest of the state. Voters in Eastern Washington need to understand that gay and lesbian families live and take part in these communities as well. Like Cindy and Janet from Richland, their kids go to the local public schools. Like Diane and Marge from Spokane, they work at your city paper and enjoy gardening. They are your small-town family doctor and school nutritionist, like Julia and Kari from Yakima. And like Clarkston residents Cathlin and Avril, they find consolation in their faith to cope with health problems. Our victory on Referendum 71 ensures protections for these couples, and the thousands of other domestic partners in Washington State. On a personal note, I’m really proud of my home state for voting to expand LGBT rights and I hope we can harness this momentum to keep organizing for full equality.
"Give Us Our Books, Don't Treat Us Like Crooks" So went the call for change on the steps of New York City Hall. On October 22, folks from the New York Civil Liberties Union and I participated in a rally at City Hall to raise public awareness about and garner support for the Student Safety Act. The rally was attended by over 100 high-school youth active in the Urban Youth Collaborative, a network of community organizations committed to ending overpolicing in New York City public schools and ensuring that our schools are safe places of learning for everybody. Unfortunately, overpolicing in public schools is hardly limited to New York City schools. The school-to-prison pipeline—a term given by advocates to the convergence of harsh disciplinary policies and reliance on police in schools that pushes children out of educational environments and into the juvenile justice system—is a growing problem all over the country. The brisk autumn weather was a perfect backdrop for a rally that was deeply moving and energizing for everyone involved. After things wound down, I had the chance to talk with 18-year-old Jaritza Geigel, a recent graduate from the Bushwick School for Social Justice, and a speaker at the rally. Jaritza shared her experience with police in her school and performed an original piece of spoken-word poetry. In anticipation of the November 10 hearing on the Student Safety Act, I asked Jaritza to contribute to the Blog of Rights about what the Student Safety Act means to her: For as long as I can remember, school has always felt like the safest place besides my home. As I grew older, I felt the same way about school until I started to attend a school with metal detectors, scanning, gated windows, and overpolicing. Urban Youth Collaborative is made up of five core organizations: Desis Rising Up and Moving, Future of Tomorrow of Cypress Hills Local Development Corporation, Make the Road New York, Sistas and Brothas United of The Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition, and Youth on the Move of Mothers on the Move.
A Promising First Step in Protecting Illinois Teenagers' Health and SafetyIn a legal challenge brought by the ACLU, an Illinois state court yesterday issued an emergency order blocking a law that prevents teens from having an abortion unless they notify a parent or go to court. This victory ensures that teens throughout Illinois will continue to be safe and able to obtain the care that they need. The truth is that most teens already turn to their parents when facing a pregnancy. This is what any of us would want as parents. Make no mistake: If enforced, this unconstitutional law would change nothing for those teens. Instead, the law endangers teenagers from dysfunctional families — those who face physical and emotional abuse, homelessness, and forced childbirth, among other things, if they tell their parents about their pregnancies. The stories the ACLU submitted to the court make this point all too well:
Proponents of parental notice laws acknowledge, as they must, that these kinds of situations exist, and that it would be unlawful to allow a parent to overrule a young woman's right to decide whether and when to become a parent herself. Instead they point to the judicial bypass, which allows a teen to go to court in lieu of talking to her parents. But what kind of alternative is it to ask a pregnant teenager, one who is already feeling quite vulnerable, to find a lawyer, navigate an unfamiliar court system, and reveal the most intimate details of her life to a judge, a complete stranger. For many, especially those who are afraid or ashamed of revealing the abuse they experience at home, going to court is simply not an option. Indeed, Jamie Sabino — a lawyer who has worked with minors seeking judicial bypasses in Massachusetts for more than 25 years — has many troubling stories to tell about the bypass process: One teen was at the courthouse for a bypass hearing when her sister's class came through on a field trip. Another ran into her father outside the courthouse. One young woman successfully went through her bypass hearing; however days later, an anti-abortion group sent her parents a letter informing them that she had done so. They had monitored the courthouse and identified her from a school yearbook picture. Although promising, yesterday's injunction is only a first step. We will continue to fight this law in the weeks and months to come. In the meantime, instead of enforcing laws that do more harm than good, let's start talking to our daughters and sons about making responsible and healthy decisions about sexuality; let's help parents and teens communicate; and let's ensure that every teen has a caring adult they can turn to for advice and support no matter what life challenges they may face.
Privacy For SaleRon Peterson has a variety of exciting aliases. "In Florida I'm a female prostitute (named Ronnie); in Texas I'm currently incarcerated for manslaughter," Peterson, a California resident, said. "In New Mexico I'm a dealer of stolen goods. Oregon has me as a witness tamperer. And in Nevada — this is my favorite — I'm a registered sex offender." All of this is thanks to the unregulated data aggregation industry. For decades data aggregators have been collecting information on Americans and selling it to the private sector and the government. This has become a multi-billion dollar industry with companies claiming to have tens of billions of records involving virtually every American. Since September 11, the government has become increasingly obsessed with collecting information on Americans and, to keep up with demand, these companies have developed even more ways to invade your privacy. Data brokers are selling details on almost every aspect of our lives including DNA analysis, purchasing habits and credit history, pilot and gun licenses, eviction notices, and even lists of family and associates. In response to the growing number of cases of mistaken identity the president of backgroundchecks.com stated, “We're not in the business of authenticating the identity of individuals. All we do is report the data that's supplied to us from the courts.” Are you kidding? Currently data aggregator companies function entirely unregulated and pose a serious threat to American citizens. They are not required to prove any of the information they are selling is accurate, there is zero transparency in what agencies they are selling it to and there is almost no way to hold them accountable for any misinformation they provide. Most often individuals have no idea they are even the subject of such an investigation. The Privacy Act of 1974 banned the government from collecting information on citizens who are not already the subject of investigation. To get around this many agencies are just purchasing the information from data brokers. Americans know the importance of individuals having a reasonable measure of knowledge and control over how they present themselves to the world. The government has a responsibility to protect that right and is not doing so. Today the Senate Judiciary Committee is considering a bill called the “Personal Data Privacy and Security Act” (S. 1490) that takes a first step toward regulating this dangerous industry. The bill does not tackle the major issue of whether the government has any right to be collecting this kind of information but it will put in place some desperately needed regulation. The ACLU’s letter of support of the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act can be found here.
Senate to Hold Landmark ENDA Hearing — ACLU to Tweet LIVE!Tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee will hold a hearing on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). This will be the first Senate hearing on ENDA since 2002. The legislation would help to ensure workplace equality by protecting LGBT workers from employment discrimination. This will be the first time in the 111th Congress that the Senate has held a hearing on this critical legislation. Especially noteworthy will be the testimony of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Tom Perez, his first since being confirmed by the Senate for his post. Assistant Attorney General Perez will testify on behalf of the Obama administration in support of the legislation. Readers can watch the hearing live via webcast. Additionally, we will be providing live, play-by-play tweets from the hearing on our Twitter page at http://twitter.com/aclu. It’s bound to be an exciting morning. Be sure to tune in. We’ll be sure to provide a post-hearing summary on our blog later in the day.
Tags: enda
Accountable for Torture…In ItalyToday, an Italian court convicted 23 Americans for the “extraordinary rendition” of a Muslim cleric who was kidnapped in Milan in 2003. The case is the first of its kind to hold Americans accountable for the rendition of terrorism suspects overseas. The three-year trial in Milan ended in the conviction of Americans — mostly CIA agents — in the kidnapping of Hassan Moustafa Osama Nasr, known as Abu Omar. Omar was seized on the streets of Milan in 2003 and held in U.S. military bases in Italy and Germany, before being transferred to Egypt, where he claimed he was tortured. After four years in detention, he was released without charge. According to media reports, the Americans were tried in absentia, and all but one was given a five-year sentence. Former Milan CIA station chief, Robert Seldon Lady, was sentenced to eight years in prison. Three other Americans were given diplomatic immunity and acquitted. Two Italians were convicted as accomplices to kidnapping. In contrast, earlier this week, a rendition lawsuit brought against U.S. government officials on behalf of Canadian citizen Maher Arar was dismissed by a U.S. Court of Appeals because it raised foreign policy and secrecy issues. And, last week a federal appeals court announced that it will hear the government's appeal of an earlier ruling that allowed an ACLU lawsuit to go forward against a Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen DataPlan Inc., for its role in the "extraordinary rendition" program. The decision in Italy underscores the need for the United States to hold its own officials accountable for crimes committed under the “extraordinary rendition” program. It is shameful that the first convictions of this kind came from a foreign justice system, where those convicted are not likely to serve their time. The U.S. judicial system must provide similar measures of accountability to hold those who committed crimes in the names of the American people responsible for their actions and provide victims of torture with access to justice. The ACLU has been calling on the Justice Department to hold accountable those involved in the illegal rendition and torture of detainees in the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Join us in asking Attorney General Holder to launch a full and thorough investigation of the abuse and torture of detainees in U.S. custody.
Tags: Rendition
One Big Disappointment, Lots of VictoriesI’m not going to try to spin it: Our loss in Maine yesterday, where voters rejected a law that would have given same-sex couples the right to marry, was deeply disappointing and discouraging. All of us here at the LGBT Project started yesterday hopeful and were further encouraged by reports that turnout was well above what was expected. But as the early returns showing No on 1 with a slight lead turned into a 30,000 vote lead for the Yes side, I had to concede that we’d lost (though I did keep hitting refresh on the Bangor Daily News results page until the wee hours of morning). Now I’m here, dejected, eating consolation donuts provided to us by our friends in the Reproductive Freedom Project and wondering when and where we will finally get that first victory for marriage at the ballot box. But part of me can’t help but be excited about the many victories we had yesterday, in races big and small, that prove we’re making progress toward LGBT equality. Washington Approval of Washington’s Referendum 71 is NOT a done deal (don’t believe everything you read on the Internet), but with over a million votes counted, our side does have a 20,000 vote lead. The state estimates that it has almost 400,000 ballots still left to count. Add to that any ballots postmarked yesterday but still in the mail, which will also be included in the final tally. The bulk of the ballots uncounted are coming from the more liberal counties, so we’re hopeful that R-71 will be approved, which will give Washington’s domestic partners the tangible rights given to married couples there, although still not the status and respect that comes with marriage. Kalamazoo In spite of transphobic fear mongering from opponents of equality, Kalamazoo’s anti-discrimination ordinance was retained by the voters in a landslide, with 62 percent in favor. In addition, all six city commissioners who voted for the ordinance were re-elected (the seventh did not run for re-election). This victory, in concert with last year’s victory in Gainesville, Florida, is repudiating the anti-trans scare tactics used by our foes. Voters see through these misleading messages and vote against discrimination anyway. Municipal Elections There were some major victories for LGBT candidates in municipal elections last night. Annise Parker, an openly lesbian candidate, came in first in the race for mayor of Houston, the country’s fourth largest city. She and the second place finisher will advance to a run-off. In a squeaker, it appears that Mark Kleinschmidt, an openly gay man, has been elected mayor of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Detroit, St. Petersburg, Akron, Maplewood, Minnesota, and SALT LAKE CITY all elected their first openly gay or lesbian city council members. Think about that last one for a minute. Salt Lake City, home of the headquarters of the Mormon Church, elected their first openly gay city council member. If that’s not a sign of progress, I’m not sure what is. Maine In Maine, despite amazing efforts by the No on 1 campaign and a host of coalition partners (including us!), we lost. Ballots outstanding and a potential recount could tighten the margin of defeat, but will not change the outcome. Rumors of low voter turnout in Portland and the youth vote not materializing abound, but the truth is that no one knows what happened yet, and we won’t for at least several days. What we do know is that this is just round one. For those who don’t know the history, Maine voters also rejected an LGBT nondiscrimination law twice at the ballot box before passing it in 2005. In that multiyear effort, Maine leaders stayed committed to the values of equality and fairness, working and reaching out until the voters got it and agreed. That will happen again in Maine. Opponents of marriage equality may be victorious today, but they should know we haven’t given up. We will be back. Even with lots of victories, a defeat is a defeat. Take today to lick your wounds. I know I’m going to. But don’t take too long, because tomorrow there’s a Senate hearing on ENDA (more on that in a post later today) and we all need to be back in the game for that one. There’s just too much going on to spend a lot of time on the sidelines. Every face-off, even the ones we lose, gets us closer to equality. We will get there. You can count on it.
ESPN Documentary to Explore Crack Disparity’s Misguided OriginsAs part of ESPN’s 30 for 30 series of documentary films, they will be airing Without Bias tonight at 8pm (with additional airings on their various sister networks over the coming months). Twenty-three years after University of Maryland basketball star Len Bias died of a drug overdose (hours after the Boston Celtics picked him in the NBA draft), ESPN will air this new documentary by Kirk Fraser. The film features interviews with his closest teammates, friends and family. For the first time, we hear firsthand accounts of what transpired during Bias' final hours from those who were with him at the time of his death. His death sparked a national media frenzy largely focused on the drug that was suspected, mistakenly, of killing him — crack cocaine. A few weeks after Len’s death, Congress, under the leadership of former Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-Mass.), passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, establishing for the first time mandatory minimum sentences triggered by specific quantities of cocaine. Congress also established much tougher sentences for crack cocaine offenses than for those involving the powder form of the substance — creating the infamous, discriminatory 100-to-1 sentencing disparity. Today, momentum in Congress for finally ending this injustice is stronger than at any other point since the disparity was first written into law. The House Judiciary Committee sent legislation that would eliminate the distinction between crack and powder under federal law on to the full chamber for a vote on the House floor. In the Senate, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), along with nearly a dozen colleagues, recently introduced S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2009. The Fair Sentencing Act would also eliminate the disparity between the two forms of the same drug. If all of that wasn’t promising enough, President Obama and the Department of Justice stand strongly behind efforts to eliminate the disparity. Without Bias chronicles how one man's meteoric rise to fame was derailed by a fatal decision that still echoes throughout sports and the criminal justice system today. Definitely one to check out tonight at 8 p.m.! Let us know what you think of the film by leaving your thoughts and comments. |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
