Categories
Join Us At:
|
Why the Contraception Mandate Matters Lately the water cooler conversations at my religiously affiliated nonprofit social service agency have been focused on trying to understand the new HHS contraceptive mandate. My younger, female coworkers and enlightened male coworkers are giddy with anticipation. For as long as any of us have been working here, we haven’t been able to get coverage for our birth control and have even had to struggle to get our employer to cover contraception prescribed for conditions like polycystic fibrosis, and dysmenorrhea. When a coworker with a cancer-causing condition needed contraception, she didn’t know what to do. She couldn’t afford the medication out-of-pocket with her meager nonprofit salary. I called our HR Director on her behalf. It took weeks to get an answer. Meanwhile my coworker couldn’t fill her prescription and her condition got worse. Recently I found out that another coworker has been paying $90 a month out-of-pocket for the contraception she needs to treat her polycystic fibrosis. HR then told us that we would have to ask permission of the agency’s CEO on a case-by-case basis. It reminded me of when I first got my period at age 12. My cramps were so bad that my pediatrician recommended low-dose contraception. My non-Catholic mother said that my very Catholic father might not allow it and that I would need to ask him for permission. The only difference here is that we are not young girls and the CEO is not our father. I pursued my coworker’s issue with our agency’s lawyer. She acknowledged that the agency had to cover the contraception in this situation, and she finally intervened and informed HR that they needed to cover it. A year later, I too needed to get contraception for dysmenorrhea, so when I asked for coverage I ended up in battle with a male HR employee that knew nothing about the earlier situation. It was embarrassing to have to reveal my medical condition to him. The ground I thought I covered last year had been lost it seemed, making it a continuously frustrating battle. When I finally got a clear answer, I requested that the agency develop a protocol and send it out to our thousands of staff throughout the city. They refused. We’re relieved that with today’s announcement from President Obama, by this time next year, the HHS mandate will allow us to make our own decisions about whether or not to take birth control. We will consult our own consciences, informed by our own health needs, and our own religious and moral convictions, not the religious beliefs of a distant religious figure. As U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand recently said, “whether or not to take birth control is the woman’s choice, not her boss’s.” Due to concerns about job security the author of this post has chosen to write under a pseudonym. Learn more about birth control coverage: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
This Week in Civil Liberties (2/10/12) What were the consequences of prosecutorial misconduct for the district attorney’s office that hid evidence to send John Thompson to death row? Who produced a short music video on photographers’ First Amendment rights? This Valentine’s Day HBO will show a documentary on which couple who challenged Virginia’s interracial marriage ban? Congress is attempting to pressure which agency to allow more aerial surveillance of Americans? Which state is trying to suppress voting by pushing a law through the state legislature that will restrict voter registration drives? If a Lawyer Stole $5 From a Client... "If a lawyer stole $5 from a client, he would probably be prosecuted and might even go to jail — but that prosecutor stole 18 years of my life and what happened to him? Nothing." This from John Thompson this week in New York, as he kicked off a multi-state speaking series on prosecutorial misconduct in the criminal justice system. Lack of prosecutorial oversight is a real and persistent problem in our nation’s justice system, and the consequences are dire. Thompson, for instance, was almost executed for a crime he did not commit. The speaking tour that began this week is designed to educate the public about prosecutorial oversight and to engage prosecutors and other legal experts in collaborative strategizing about how to respond to this sort of extreme misconduct on the part of government lawyers. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and The Gregory Brothers Team Up With the ACLU on Photographers' Rights A couple of weeks ago at the Sundance Film Festival, the open-collaborative production company hitRECord released a short animated music video on photographers’ First Amendment rights, in collaboration with the ACLU of Florida, The Gregory Brothers (best known for Auto-Tune the News), HitRecord director Joseph Gordon-Levitt and artists from around the world. While the video is fun, the message is serious. Taking photos in public of public actions — especially those of the police — is a protected right. The Lovings: A Couple That Changed History Mildred and Richard Loving never set out to have their marriage become the subject of one of the most famous civil rights cases of the last century. But it was their deep affection for one another and sheer determination that led them to the Supreme Court, where the ACLU represented them in a landmark case that struck down state bans on interracial marriage. Now, this saga of a 17-year-old Black woman who wanted nothing else than to marry her white 23-year-old childhood sweetheart will be recounted in The Loving Story, a documentary that will be shown, appropriately, on Valentine’s Day, at 9 p.m. ET. Congress Trying to Fast-Track Domestic Drone Use, Sideline Privacy Congress is poised to give final passage to legislation that would give a big boost to domestic unmanned aerial surveillance — aka “drones.” Domestic deployment of unmanned aircraft for surveillance purposes has largely been blocked so far by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which is rightly concerned about the safety effects of filling our skies with flying robots (which crash significantly more often than manned aircraft).The FAA is under pressure to loosen the reins and permit broader deployment of drones by government agencies. Unfortunately, nothing in the bill would address the very serious privacy issues raised by drone aircraft. This bill would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected. Under the Radar: South Carolina Rushes Through Yet another Voter Suppression Bill The South Carolina legislature is rushing through a law that would severely restrict community-based voter registration drives. House Bill 4549, modeled after a Florida law that forced the League of Women Voters and other civic organizations to abandon voter registration efforts in the state, would effectively shut down community-based voter registration drives in South Carolina, requiring any individual or organization to register with the state before assisting other South Carolinians in registering to vote, and subjecting those individuals or organizations to up to $1,000 in fines, even for honest mistakes like sending the forms to the wrong county or not putting enough postage on the envelopes. This is your week in civil liberties. Let us know if this is useful or if you'd like to see changes. Share your thoughts: ideas@aclu.org Learn more about your rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Let Eileen Vote. What’s new in voter suppression land today? South Dakota is trying to prevent Eileen Janis — and hundreds of other citizens — from voting. Eileen grew up on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and does suicide prevention work. She registered to vote for the first time in 1984. “I always vote because my mom told me to,” she says. But when she went to cast her ballot in the historic 2008 election, she found that she had been illegally removed from the voter rolls. Though she had been convicted of a felony, her sentence to probation meant that she had not lost the right to cast a ballot. “I went [to vote] with my son who had just turned 18. As soon as I tried to vote I was told no because I was a felon.” The illegal denial of Eileen’s voting rights is part of South Dakota’s long and troubling history of violating the civil rights of Native Americans. Native Americans are highly over-represented in the criminal justice system, so denying voting rights to people on probation has an unfair and disproportionate impact on Native American voters. The ACLU sued on behalf of Eileen and other Native Americans wrongfully purged from the rolls. We won, and South Dakota was ordered to make sure that people on probation were allowed to cast their ballots. But the South Dakota legislature is now considering a bill that would strip Eileen and anyone else convicted of a felony of the right to vote, even if they never serve jail time and are living in their communities. Measures designed to suppress the vote have been sweeping the nation, and South Dakota appears to be jumping on the bandwagon — but not if we can help it. The Voting Rights Act gives the US Department of Justice (DOJ) the power to ensure that voting laws do not discriminate. Tell the DOJ to protect the right to vote in South Dakota and across the nation. And urge Congress to pass the Democracy Restoration Act, which would let Eileen — and all Americans with past convictions who are living in their communities — vote in federal elections. Learn more about voter suppression: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: South Dakota, voter disfranchisement, voter suppression
Modified Birth Control Rule Should End Controversy (But It Probably Won’t) Today’s announcement from President Obama that his administration will modify its policy on contraception insurance coverage to allow religiously affiliated organizations to opt out of paying for contraceptive coverage and instead have insurance companies directly provide coverage should end the recent storm of controversy surrounding the birth control rule. The administration’s actions should lay to rest arguments, primarily lobbed from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the lobbying arm of the Catholic Church, that religious liberty is under attack in this country. A civil debate around health care delivery in the U.S. should resume. All of those things should happen — but time will tell. Access to affordable birth control is essential for women and their families. Women use contraception to prevent unintended pregnancies, plan their families and protect their health. Virtually every woman of childbearing age — including 98 percent of sexually active Catholics — uses contraception at some point in her life. For days now, the bishops and some other religious leaders have been claiming that their religious liberty is under attack. Let’s be clear: it isn’t. The bishops have been trying to use their religious beliefs to discriminate against the female employees of religiously-affiliated organizations like universities and hospitals. While everyone has a right to their beliefs, the promise of religious liberty in this country doesn’t create a blanket right to deny critical health care to the female nurses, custodians, and administrators that work for these organizations. While the original policy was constitutional and already in place in many states, this compromise allows women to receive the care they need at an affordable price, while signaling that this administration is open to the concerns of the bishops and others. But will this be enough to satisfy the bishops and others? As recently reported by Think Progress, the bishops have strongly suggested that the only “compromise” that would satisfy them is that NO employers should have to pay for birth control for women. Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops defines his idea of a compromise: “That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for “good Catholic business people who can’t in good conscience cooperate with this.” “If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I’d be covered by the mandate,” Picarello said. The idea that all employers should have the right to deny health care coverage to employers is out-of-step with public opinion and is unconstitutional. Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans agree that “employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost.” Further, the Supreme Court long ago explained that excusing individuals or institutions from neutral and generally applicable laws would devolve into a system “in which each conscience is a law unto itself.” In coming days, on the talking heads shows and in the press, we fear you will see the bishops and others saying that they don’t even want insurance companies reaching out to their employees about birth control. You may hear them say that people of faith are under attack. But they will be wrong. Real religious freedom gives everyone the right to make personal decisions, including whether and when to use birth control, based on their own beliefs. It doesn’t give one group the right to impose its beliefs on others. Learn more about birth control: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: birth control, Catholic Church, contraception, Department of Health and Human Services
Paying Our Debt to Society, But Not Really Black History Month is an opportune time to talk about how Blacks are disenfranchised of their ability to pursue the American dream. Too easily, a bad decision can cause a person to lose their ability to participate in society and unfortunately a person’s skin color can affect what happens to them once they enter the judicial process in America. Growing up in a small southern town in the heart of “Klan Country,” you can only imagine what it must have been like, especially for young Black men in our community. I have childhood memories of racial disparity that are still relevant today. Although I was a young child when Martin Luther King was murdered, his actual death is vague. But I vividly remember how his death affected my community.
The country was in an uproar after Dr. King’s death with riots from coast to coast. Just as the rest of the country was angry and grief stricken, so were five young Black men in North Carolina who decided to vent their anger and frustration by burning down the Ku Klux Klan meeting house. In 1968, their audacity could’ve meant death, but thankfully the Black community rallied around them to make sure that they were safe and made it to trial. As luck would have it, only the door of the building burned. All five men were arrested and eventually sentenced to 10 years of hard labor at the state penitentiary. There was such an uproar and outcry of disgust at the sentencing that the NAACP stepped in, appealed the verdict and all of the men were released and placed on probation. Those five young men got a second chance and all went on to live productive lives — attend college, join the military, work in careers of their choosing. In contrast, there are so many young men and women today who can’t rebuild their lives after being convicted of a felony. Time spent behind bars is supposed to “pay your debt to society” for the crime committed. When you’ve completed your sentence, you’re supposed to get out and be able to start over, rebuild your life. This is not possible for many who can’t find jobs, live in certain places and can’t qualify for a government grants to attend college. Our overcrowded jails and prisons are filled with people who have been over-sentenced and know that there are challenges ahead once they leave. If every door is shut, it is impossible for them to support themselves and families, and rejoin society. I’m not condoning criminal behavior, but the laws need to change so that people with records get a second chance. Who knows what would have become of my brother and cousins in North Carolina if these laws were in place back in 1968. This blog post is one of several personal testimonials written by ACLU staff members to commemorate Black History Month. Do you know who’s pictured in our Celebrate Black History logo? Clockwise from top right: Martin Luther King, Jr.; Malcolm X; Sojourner Truth and Rosa Parks. Learn more about overincarceration: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Breaking the Addiction to Incarceration: Weekly HighlightsToday, 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 Daily Show Takes on Drug Testing for Public Benefits Fair Federal Sentencing In addition, the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s guidelines continue to get attention from legislators and the media. To learn more, you can check out the blog post by the ACLU’s Sandhya Bathija and watch a panel discussion, moderated by the ACLU’s Senior Legislative Counsel Jesselyn McCurdy, that explores the current state of federal sentencing guidelines and the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Florida Considers Privatizing 29 Prisons Racial Justice Act Raise the Crime Rate Learn more about overincarceration: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Christopher Glazek, crack sentencing, drug sentencing, drug testing, Fair Sentencing Act, Florida, Marcus Robinson, North Carolina, overincarceration, overincarceration clips, private prisons, Racial Justice Act, sentencing disparity, sentencing reform, U.S. Sentencing Commission, welfare
Hey, Staples, Put This in Your "Lactation Chamber" and Pump It!Tom Stemberg, co-founder of the Staples office supply chain, complained in a recent interview that the Affordable Care Act (known by opponents as “Obamacare”) will cost jobs by mandating that employers set up “lactation chambers.” This statement came on the same day as a court ruling in Houston that firing an employee because she asked for a private place to pump breast milk wasn’t sex discrimination under federal law, because lactation is not “a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth.” “Lactation chambers”?? Breastfeeding not related to pregnancy or childbirth?? All of this makes me feel as if we are living in an alternate, sci-fi universe, where men breastfeed, and pumping takes place in some kind of exotic, state-of-the art diving bell. The provision Stemberg is complaining about merely requires that employers give eligible employees who are breastfeeding reasonable unpaid breaks and a private place, other than a bathroom, to use a breast pump — something that many employers already voluntarily do. Actually, supporting breastfeeding moms saves employers money by improving infant health, thus reducing absenteeism and increasing productivity. It also improves employee retention, and avoids costs of replacing and retraining women who might otherwise leave the workforce. As the Houston case shows, failure to support breastfeeding is not cost-neutral: women lose their jobs because of it. This is also an issue of fairness. For too long, the workplace has been designed around the needs of employees who do not — and cannot — get pregnant or lactate: namely, men. As a result, women are too often forced into a situation where they have to choose between their families’ well-being and their jobs. Some women who face barriers to pumping at work delay rejoining the workforce so they can continue to breastfeed, but most can’t afford that choice, and have to give up what they believe is the healthiest option for their babies in order to continue supporting their families financially. We can’t achieve full equality for women in employment until our workplace policies recognize that women, as well as men, are a valuable part of the workforce throughout their reproductive lives. If Staples is committed to a fair and diverse workplace, it must issue an immediate apology to its female employees and to working women everywhere. Tell Stermberg to put that in his “lactation chamber” and pump it! Learn more about women's rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: breast pump, breastfeeding, workers' rights
A Jarring Racial Awareness Profiled Although I am African, my family’s move to Rhode Island in the early 1980s led to a jarring racial awareness I had not previously experienced. It wasn’t until my teens that I realized that my grade school friend in Liberia was a blonde haired, blue-eyed Black girl! My first day of school turned up two things: I was the first Black student at Hugh B. Bain Middle School and the darkest person anybody in the school had ever seen. “Blue” some later called me. Each class began with an impromptu introduction. I fielded questions about tigers and lions, which struck me as odd, but I knew the answers from firsthand experience at the zoo. So, I provided them. Because I excelled in track, the coach encouraged me to also try out for basketball, although I had never touched an orange ball before. Despite expectations, my basketball ability can only be described as horrible. Forget Black, I might as well have had green skin.
Like a typical teen, I mirrored my peers to assimilate and felt confident and very American: from my speech to my cordless curling iron. Even the regular presence of a police car crawling alongside as I walked home from track practice was a norm. A white schoolmate offered that the police always questioned school-aged kids, so I accepted their lingering. I marveled at the exceptional service at retail stores. At every turn, there were eager salespeople never more than a glance away. I tell you, the service I received from retailers looking to earn my $20 weekly allowance rivaled the attention reserved for esteemed customers in Africa. So, shopping became a cherished experience. Later, the arrival of two Black brothers from an urban neighborhood in Providence clued me in to something else. I did not act or speak “Black.” I learned what being followed around the store really meant! Alone, my experience is mild, but millions have similar experiences. Today, racial profiling is disguised as immigration enforcement or other laws that negatively affect one group of people disproportionately... Racial profiling is still unfair. During Black History Month, let’s applaud the achievements of Blacks who paved the way by continuing to stand up for equal treatment for us all. Every person in America, regardless of race, creed or national origin deserves a fair chance to enjoy core American values. The victory over unfair treatment is quite a feat, but for Blacks in this country, it is more than a fight for equality or rights. It is a fight for the privilege to be judged based on individual merit and to remove that inherent hesitation and defensiveness that I’ve learned comes with being a Black person living in America. This blog post is one of several personal testimonials written by ACLU staff members to commemorate Black History Month. Do you know who’s pictured in our Celebrate Black History logo? Clockwise from top right: Martin Luther King, Jr.; Malcolm X; Frederick Douglass and Rosa Parks. Learn more about racial profiling: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Could Your Taxes Fund Religious Buildings? Yes!It’s everyone’s favorite time of the year: tax season! But as millions of us file our taxes (and hope we don’t get audited), federal agencies are considering troubling new regulations that could spend your tax money to construct churches and other religious buildings. A long time ago, James Madison denounced government attempts to spend even “three pence” of our taxes for religious purposes. And Thomas Jefferson stood up against the “sinful and tyrannical” act of forcing taxpayers to fund any religion (even their own) against their will. A lot has changed since then, but not this longstanding First Amendment principle. The separation of church and state protects against advancing religion with taxpayer dollars. Recent administration action, however, attempts to wipe out constitutional protections against the use of public funds for religious purposes and would put in place even more lax policies than those in place under the George W. Bush administration. The ACLU has fought back against proposed regulations from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, USAID, and the Department of Commerce, that if approved would allow the government to pay for constructing religious buildings. The Constitution requires that buildings built on the taxpayers’ dime cannot be put to religious use — but these regulations would allow exactly that — even to build churches! Each of these proposed regulations would be an affront to the Constitution. The government cannot be in the business of promoting religion. Contrary to those who accuse this administration of a “war on religion,” the facts simply don’t add up. On top of this unsettling pattern of attempts to disregard the Constitution, President Obama boasted about an expansion of the faith-based initiative program last week at the National Prayer Breakfast. And in the last year alone, the administration has awarded Catholic Charities over three quarters of a billion dollars in grants. Like the Founding Fathers before him, the Obama administration should be working to protect First Amendment principles, not undermine them by using public money to fund religious institutions. Learn more about government-funded religion: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Catholic Church
Report on Segregation Is at Odds with RealityComing at a time when any discussion of integration seems like a quaint relic from the past, the Manhattan Institute's recently released report, The End of the Segregated Century, seemed like welcome news. Neither political party has raised it as a question or concern during this election year. And apart from the often unheard voices of fair housing and civil rights organizations, there has been virtually no discussion about the merits or need for integration in America. Given there has been such relative silence on the issue, it’s disappointing that the report fails to take advantage of this opportunity to fully explore the fact that segregation is still very much a part of America today. It’s not that the authors misstated facts. Critics agree that there have been improvement in some respects. The problem is that the report suggests the battle against residential segregation is largely over. That conclusion is sadly at odds with reality. Segregation persists in this country, and in some cases has worsened. The report makes clear the enormous complexity of residential segregation and the need to take a nuanced look at the issue. Studies show that integration is important not only because it addresses discrimination and promotes understanding, but because where you live is important. It determines access to education, transportation, employment, health care and access to a clean and healthy environment. These studies demonstrate that people of color not only tend to live in more racially and economically segregated areas but that they also live in communities that lag far behind white communities when it comes to access to all of these positive things. Any meaningful study of segregation will have to include questions of access to opportunity. Questions of opportunity and access in education are instructive. As demonstrated by Gary Orfield at UCLA, segregation in schools is increasing once again after a relatively short time of improvement. In Sheff v. O’Neill, for example, a twenty-three year old education case, the ACLU and other groups have been fighting to enforce a 1996 order that Connecticut reduce the racial and ethnic isolation caused in large part by residential segregation patterns. With racial and economic segregation come concentrations of poverty, lack of access to educational resources, lower educational outcomes, greater numbers of dropouts, less likelihood of access to meaningful employment and greater chances of involvement with the criminal justice system. Similar long-term consequences result from lack of equal access to employment, health care and other opportunity deprivations that communities of color are subject to them. Taken separately, these deprivations are serious, combined they are devastating and nearly insurmountable. The Manhattan Institute report ultimately raises more questions than it answers. It raises questions of what the numbers mean and, perhaps more importantly, what the numbers do not tell us. Does the “integration” being celebrated mean greater and more equal access for all people? Does the reduction of segregation in certain neighborhoods signal a period of access to better schools, more jobs, better medical access, greater availability of healthier foods or is it just the displacement of low-income populations to areas of lesser opportunity? The best outcome of the Manhattan Institute study would be the opening of a meaningful discussion of these and other questions. Learn more about segregation: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: segregation |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
