Fittingly, on the eve of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, plaintiffs had their first hearing in federal court yesterday in their challenge to the breast cancer gene patents. The government's granting of exclusive rights to the BRCA1 and 2 human genes and Myriad Genetics' aggressive enforcement of its patent rights means that some women cannot access genetic testing to find out if they are at increased risk for hereditary breast or ovarian cancer, and that no one can get a second opinion on their test results. It also means that Myriad controls whether scientific researchers can study the BRCA genes or develop new genetic tests.

For the 20 breast cancer and women's health groups, individual women, genetic counselors, researchers, and scientific associations consisting of approximately 150,000 geneticists, pathologists, and laboratory professionals the ACLU represents, patents on human genes unacceptably restrict scientific freedom and access to information about one's own genes. (For more information, read our post from May when the challenge was filed.)

Yesterday's hearing was held on the motions to dismiss the case filed by the defendants — the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the patent holders, Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation — who claim that the plaintiffs have no right to sue in court. We argued that the case should be allowed to proceed because our plaintiffs' rights are being violated by Myriad's actions and by the Patent Office's decision to issue gene patents in the first place, and that the court needs to provide a remedy because of the serious scientific and women's health implications.

Major groups like the American Medical Association and the March of Dimes filed briefs in support of the plaintiffs' position.

We expect a ruling this month. If the court allows the plaintiffs to proceed with their case, it will then hear further arguments on the plaintiffs' claims.

To read the complaint, watch a video of our plaintiffs, and much more, visit www.aclu.org/brca.

For people in the New York area who are interested in learning more about gene patents, there will be a film screening and panel discussion entitled, "The Breast Cancer Genes, Patents, and Access" held at the Cardozo School of Law on October 19. Details about the event are available here.

Today the Baltimore Sun published an op-ed by Ariela Migdal of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project and Deborah Jeon of the ACLU of Maryland. Ariela and Deborah write about the ACLU's lawsuit against the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis's policy that bans certain individuals from being on or near public housing property, even to visit their families. Ariela and Deborah tell the stories of two of our clients, Dalanda Moses and Glenda Smith, two women whose families have been torn apart by the policy, and write:

Families have the right to make decisions about their own homes, but the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis unlawfully bans certain individuals from being on or near public housing in Annapolis even when they are invited guests of tenants. This policy doesn't promote public safety. On the contrary, it aggravates social problems by separating people from their families.

The housing authority maintains a list of more than 500 people who are banned from being on or near public housing property. The agency claims that all of these people are a danger to the community, but many of them have never been convicted or even charged with a crime, while others committed minor offenses years ago and have long since served their time. Still, they can't get off the list. And if they violate the ban, they are arrested and prosecuted for trespassing. Residents who allow banned family members into their homes are subject to eviction.

In an article in the Annapolis Capital about the filing of the case, the Annapolis police defended the banned list:

Police and public-safety officials stress the benefits of the list, however.

It lets them round up trouble-makers before they can break the law, they said. Those trespassing arrests mean fewer assault, robbery and even murder arrests, they said.

"It's one of the most effective tools we have of keeping undesirables out of the community," said Detective John Lee, chief steward of the police union.

It is precisely the use of the policy in this manner that is problematic. Rounding up people who the police assume will commit crimes is a clear violation of civil liberties. People whose only "crime" is entering the property while banned are not a danger to the community.

To learn more about this case and watch videos of our clients, go to www.aclu.org/housingban.

(Originally posted on Daily Kos.)

Yesterday, the Justice Department released a damning new report (PDF) about the horrible conditions in juvenile prisons in upstate New York. The story made the front page of the New York Times, and in a related op-ed called "New York's Disgrace," the Times writes:

This problem has been festering for decades. Elected officials who have ignored it will need to clean house as swiftly as possible, closing down the worst institutions and ensuring that children in custody are protected from abuse in compliance with federal law.

Unfortunately, the abuses that occurred in these prisons have been going on for years, despite having been exposed before.

Back in the winter of 2005, I was a novice researcher at Human Rights Watch, trying to find out what life was like for girls held in youth prisons in upstate New York. Getting information was almost impossible. The New York juvenile justice agency — called the Office of Children and Family Services, or OCFS — was one of the most secretive and defensive that Human Rights Watch had ever encountered, even compared with agencies in places like Bulgaria, Guatemala, Kenya, and Brazil.

Because OCFS refused to let human rights monitors into its facilities, we scraped together information from every place we could, tracking down girls who had recently been released, finding sources inside the agency and even lurking in prison parking lots in mid-winter to talk to the parents of incarcerated girls.

Months of work yielded the ACLU/Human Rights Watch joint report, Custody and Control. The report exposed severe abuse and neglect of all kinds at the Lansing Residential Center for girls in Tompkins County and the Tryon Residential Center for girls and boys in Fulton County.  Girls were brutalized for transgressions as minor as talking back or not standing in line the right way. They were denied adequate schooling and services and kept in isolation. Their histories of victimization, their mental illnesses and their human rights were ignored.

We released Custody and Control in 2006. We pushed the Justice Department to investigate and we railed in the press. OCFS, for its part, owned up to some of the abuses, denied others, and promised to change.

Reading the DOJ's report, which describes in gruesome detail many of the same abuses we exposed three years ago, I didn't feel vindicated. Instead, I felt sick. So much is still so wrong, and in some ways it's gotten even worse.

Girls are still brutally punished for hurting themselves or confessing they've considered suicide. They are brutalized for their mental illnesses. One severely mentally ill girl described in the DOJ report was held alone in a building — "abandoned" is the word DOJ used — in a room with her own urine and feces, because facility workers couldn't or wouldn't help her.

It was clear back in 2006 what needed to be done, and it is still clear now.

First, the Justice Department's report shows us that these four youth prisons, at a minimum, are corrupt beyond repair. They should be closed. Now. More effective, cheaper and safer alternatives to incarceration have worked elsewhere, are working in New York, and need to be expanded.

Second, in the coming legislative session, the New York state senate must pass the bill, which has been introduced several times, creating an Office of the Child Advocate, separate from OCFS. The abuses in youth prisons thrive in darkness. An independent child advocate means transparency and accountability, which are the only way to keep these abuses from happening over and over.

There have been more than enough damning reports, broken bones, and abandoned children. We know where the problems lie, and how to solve them. It will take genuine political will and public pressure that goes on far longer than a news cycle to make sure that two years from now we don't hear the same heartbreaking revelations again.

Twenty-five. That's the percent of women who say they would've obtained a Medicaid-funded abortion if they had the option, but instead carried their pregnancies to term. According to a new Guttmacher report released yesterday, many of these women are forced to forgo an abortion because they lack personal funds to pay for the procedure. I can hear the anti-choice advocates popping their Champagne corks now. But, the story is more complicated.

The Hyde Amendment, which was enacted in 1976, excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services the federal government provides to low-income people through Medicaid. Congress has carved out some exceptions to the ban over the years; currently the only abortions allowed under the federal Medicaid program are those involving a case of rape or incest or when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. Presently, 32 states and Washington, D.C., follow the federal government's lead. South Dakota, in violation of the Hyde Amendment, is even more draconian and only pays for abortions if a women's life is in danger. That leaves only 17 states that use their own money to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions. That means that only 17 states will help a woman obtain an abortion when her health is in danger. So, that 25 percent I mentioned earlier includes women with cancer, diabetes, heart conditions, or whose pregnancies otherwise threaten their health who are nonetheless forced to carry their pregnancies to term because they are not deemed likely enough to die from their pregnancies for the government to pay for an abortion.

Guttmacher's new report, "Restrictions on Medicaid Funding for Abortions: A Literature Review," also found that Medicaid funding restrictions delay some women's abortions by two to three weeks, as the women scrounge up the funds necessary for the procedure. Delaying an abortion can both increase the cost of the procedure and the risks. Moreover, when Medicaid will not pay for a low-income woman's abortion, she is often forced to divert money that would otherwise be used to pay for regular expenses, like rent, utility bills, food, and clothing for herself and her children.

The bottom line is that the government uses abortion funding restrictions to coerce poor women into carrying their pregnancies to term. Because Medicaid will offer assistance for prenatal care if a woman chooses to carry her pregnancy to term but will deny funding if the same woman needs to end her pregnancy, the government is using public dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision about whether or not to have an abortion. The right to decide whether to have a child should not be contingent upon one's income. However, by withholding benefits from poor women who seek to end an unwanted or unhealthy pregnancy, the government is interfering with this profoundly personal decision and effectively denying poor women access to basic reproductive health care.

If we really want to build a healthier and more just America, we need to ensure that everyone has access to the full-range of reproductive health services, including birth control, prenatal care, cancer screening, and abortion. It also means investing in comprehensive pregnancy and disease prevention education programs so that young people have the information they need to make responsible, healthy, and safe decisions about relationships and sexual activity.

Moreover, in a truly just America, a woman facing an unintended pregnancy should have the opportunity to make the best decision for herself and her family, regardless of her financial status. We may not all feel the same way about abortion, but as yesterday's Guttmacher report makes clear, it is important that we support every woman's health and autonomy, and make sure that all options and services are available to those who need them.