The debate over sentencing guidelines is about to heat up in Congress, according to a recent report by NPR. In a story that ran on Tuesday’s Morning Edition, Carrie Johnson reports that some GOP members of Congress aren’t happy with the current state of federal sentencing guidelines.

For decades, mandatory sentencing guidelines forced judges to hand down harsh and unfair sentences that did not always fit the offender and unnecessarily flooded our prisons. This included the mandatory sentencing scheme that unequally punished comparable offenses involving crack and powder cocaine at a ratio of 100:1 and resulted in racially biased sentencing.

But in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Booker that the sentencing guidelines were advisory, not mandatory. While judges were required to consult the guidelines, they had flexibility to take into account other factors and ensure that sentences were not greater than necessary. The ACLU applauded this decision as a step toward fairness and more sensible sentencing.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission, which developed the original mandatory guidelines, continues to play a critical role in shaping sentencing guidelines. Last year, the commission recommended that the new, fairer sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses established by the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) should be applied retroactively to people sentenced before the FSA was passed. The FSA reduced the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses — two forms of the same drug — from 100:1 to 18:1 (an improvement, although the fairest guidelines would be 1:1).

Despite the fact that FSA retroactivity brought desperately needed improvements to federal sentences, the commission’s decision wasn’t well-received by all. In October, in response to the decision, the House Judiciary Committee held an ironic hearing: whether the fairer sentencing system is fair and what role the commission should play in it.

Some legislators now falsely argue that the post-Booker scheme has led to more unwarranted disparity in sentencing, and called for a return to mandatory sentencing guidelines. Some called for an end to the commission all together.

The ACLU submitted a statement at the October hearing arguing that the current system and the commission have resulted in and continue to encourage more fairness in sentencing. In fact, the Booker decision still requires judges to use the guidelines as a starting point, and judges have handed out within-guidelines sentences in the majority of cases since Booker.

To continue the discussion on the issue, in late January, the ACLU and the American Constitution Society held a panel that can be watched in full here. “The Relevancy and Reach of the U.S. Sentencing Commission” was moderated by Jesselyn McCurdy, ACLU senior legislative counsel, and the panelists included the Honorable Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and Chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission; Amy Baron-Evans, Sentencing Resource Counsel, Federal Public and Community Defenders; Douglas A. Berman, law professor at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; and Michael Volkov, partner at the law firm Mayer Brown.

In recent years, we have finally gotten closer to finding the right balance between the concepts of consistency and fairness in sentencing. Both the advisory guidelines and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have been responsible for achieving this balance.

The commission serves a vital role in improving federal sentencing laws to make individual sentences fair and works to educate judges and practitioners on improved sentencing practices. Returning to mandatory guidelines and abolishing the commission would be a disastrous step backward and would only lead to America maintaining its position as the world’s largest incarcerator.

Learn more about sentencing law: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Earlier this week, Michael Gerson’s disregard for the health of women and their families appeared once again on the pages of the Washington Post.

The affront? The administration’s announcement that all new health insurance plans — except those held by churches and other houses of worship — will need to include coverage for birth control because it’s essential preventive health care for women.

Gerson’s pronouncement? If the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ lobby doesn’t get everything it asks for, there must be a “war” on religion.

Institutions like hospitals and universities employ people of diverse faiths and backgrounds. This rule respects religious liberty while preventing religiously affiliated organizations from using religion as an excuse to discriminate and deny services to others. Organizations that operate in the public sphere should play by public rules. That’s not a “war” on religion; that’s the Constitution.

Here’s what really happened late last month when the administration announced it would keep its new rule on contraception intact: Millions more women will now be guaranteed that, when they have health insurance, it will include the coverage they need — to prevent unintended pregnancies, to protect their health and to plan their lives.

Here’s what Gerson got wrong:

• Nothing changed with respect to abortion coverage. Contraception prevents pregnancy. End of story. By making contraception better available, the rule reduces the need for abortion. But why should silly facts get in the way of polemics when there are uteruses to be policed!
• No one will be compelled to use birth control, or to sing its praises. Practicing birth control will continue to be a personal decision; one that a woman makes in accordance with her own beliefs or faith. But no longer will women be compelled to go without this basic care — which is what the lack of insurance coverage means for so many families.
• The administration would not have escaped “controversy” if it created loopholes for a long list of institutions that employ people of diverse faiths and backgrounds. Gerson and his friends might have been appeased, but the countless women who depend on their insurance coverage for access to health care — and all the men, women, and families who support fair treatment — would have been appalled by a decision to put politics ahead of women’s health.

By standing with the employees at religiously affiliated institutions, the Obama administration sent a clear message that religion is not an excuse to discriminate. That may be a blow for the bishops’ political agenda, but it’s a victory for those of us who promote equality and true religious freedom side by side.

Learn more about birth control: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Today, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. With over 2.3 million men and women living behind bars, our imprisonment rate is the highest it’s ever been in U.S. history. And yet, our criminal justice system has failed on every count: public safety, fairness and cost-effectiveness. Across the country, the criminal justice reform conversation is heating up. Each week, we feature our some of the most exciting and relevant news in overincarceration discourse that we’ve spotted from the previous week. Check back weekly for our top picks.

The State of Sentencing in 2011: Developments in Policy and Practice
The Sentencing Project recently released its report of state-level criminal justice reforms passed in 2011. A summary of 55 reforms passed in 29 states, the report documents the newest state laws in a growing national trend to reduce our dependence on incarceration. Examples include: Florida’s expansion of drug court eligibility, Texas’s introduction of "earned time credits" — opportunities for prisoners to reduce their sentence by completing educational, therapeutic, or vocational training — and Louisiana’s alternative penalties for technical parole violations, such as missing a meeting with a parole officer.

GOP Seeks Big Changes In Federal Prison Sentences
More than 20 years ago, the U.S. Sentencing Commission created guidelines for federal sentencing. A Supreme Court decision in 2005 made those guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. That allows federal judges to exercise more discretion in sentencing. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) is calling for more consistency in federal sentencing, and some Republicans want more mandatory sentencing.

California's Youth Prisons Nearing an End
Last month, California Governor Jerry Brown announced his plan to shut down all state youth prisons by 2014. If backed by the Legislature, Governor Brown’s proposal would require counties to develop prudent local alternatives to state custodial facilities. The proposal has met significant opposition from stakeholders, such as youth advocates and district attorneys, who have raised concerns that the counties do not have the programs and resources to manage the current juvenile prisoner population. This San Francisco Chronicle article outlines some of the steps California will have to take to make this transition feasible.

Florida Prison Closings Are a Legacy of Wrong Guess
Last month, Florida Governor Rick Scott decided to close seven of Florida’s 62 prisons because they’re simply not needed. Why? Twenty years ago, lawmakers forecasted a crime increase that never materialized, and commissioned the construction of prisons that they now don’t need.

Texas Officials Seeking Room for Mentally Ill Inmates
Texas officials are scrambling to find beds in state mental hospitals for 400 mentally incompetent local jail inmates in anticipation of a judge’s ruling that jail isn’t the right place for the mentally incompetent. For the last two years, incompetent detainees have had to wait an average of six months for a bed to open up so that a doctor could evaluate them and determine whether and how they could be restored to a stable state for trial. In a letter written last week, Austin Judge Orlinda Naranjo stated that a wait that long for a spot at a state mental hospital violates the constitutional rights of inmates who have been found incompetent to stand trial.

Learn more about overincarceration: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

I’m thrilled that the Susan G. Komen foundation just announced that they would continue funding to Planned Parenthood. Their quick reversal was a response to the PR nightmare their defunding decision sparked. People from all walks of life and from all over the country criticized Komen’s decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood, and took to the streets (well, their computers) donating money to Planned Parenthood and demanding that Komen stand by its commitment to women’s health. And rightfully so. The Komen Foundation appeared to have bowed to pressure from anti-choice extremists willing to put women's lives at risk by denying them breast cancer screenings in order to advance their radical agenda.

But here is the thing. The Komen Foundation’s decision to strip Planned Parenthood of its funding is just the tip of the iceberg. Last year, state after state put politics before women's health and cut off funding for Planned Parenthood and other health care facilities that provide critical health services for low-income women and men because those organizations provide or refer for abortion care.

What happened in Kansas is typical. In its zeal to shut down Planned Parenthood, the state stopped federal money from going to Planned Parenthood and other health centers that provide critical health services. This money was designated by the federal government to provide basic health care — services like contraceptives and cancer screenings. But, just like the Komen Foundation, the legislators in Kansas put abortion politics before women's health. Had it not been for the ACLU's lawsuit , the Dodge City Family Planning Clinic would have been forced to shut its doors leaving the low-income residents of a large three county area without any means to access these basic services.

And it doesn't end there. The state of Arizona went so far as to kick organizations that even refer a woman for an abortion out of a program that encourages individuals to donate to organizations that serve the working poor. Again, legislators were literally willing to put women's lives at risk in an effort to scare off organizations, like our client, the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, from having anything to do with abortion. On behalf of the coalition, whose members sometimes refer their clients — domestic violence survivors who have been the subject to sexual assault — for abortion, the ACLU sued and won. But, already a bill has been introduced in the Arizona legislature that would again attempt to penalize organizations involved in abortion care.

In fact, in the last year, states from Colorado to North Carolina to New Hampshire passed laws that punished organizations that provide or refer for abortions by stripping them of money to provide basic health care services. And states around the country are getting in line to do the same this year.

So for those of us who were rightly outraged about the Komen Foundation, and took action and made them pay attention — let’s celebrate that victory. But we can't stop there. For the sake of women’s health, we must be equally vocal in our opposition to these threats coming at us from all across the nation. We must stay engaged and defeat all of the efforts to put women’s lives and health at risk by punishing organizations that provide abortion related care.

Learn more about reproductive rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

CORRECTION: A correction was made for greater accuracy. The first sentence originally read: "I’m thrilled that the Susan G. Komen foundation just announced that they would restore funding to Planned Parenthood."