The BRCA (breast cancer) genes have been at the forefront of a lot of conversations these days. All men and women have the BRCA genes, but some of us have hereditary mutations along these genes that have been linked to breast and ovarian cancer. In the Family, a documentary film that premiered on PBS last night, explores the intensely personal question of what to do when you find out that you have a BRCA mutation that drastically elevates your risk for developing cancer. Christina Applegate — who bravely came forward last month about her own breast cancer diagnosis, testing positive for a BRCA1 mutation, and her decision to have a prophylactic double mastectomy — talked with Oprah on Tuesday about these very issues and the overwhelming expense of genetic testing and MRIs. USA Today reported last week that demand for BRCA testing has doubled since 2005 and that more and more parents are having their kids tested, against the advice of clinicians. And Stand Up to Cancer, which launched in early September, has made its mission to bring together a team of cancer researchers who will share new discoveries about genes linked to all forms of cancer and collaborate on finding new methods of prevention and treatment.

Underlying these conversations are the civil liberties concerns posed by the burgeoning field of genetic testing. First, these tests create the potential for new forms of discrimination against people with genetic predispositions for various hereditary diseases. The ACLU has been active in promoting the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which was finally, after 12 years of consideration by Congress, signed into law in May. The law is far from perfect, but provides essential baseline protections that will allow individuals to speak more freely about hereditary risks for disease, and to undergo testing if they choose, without worrying that they will be fired by their employers or dropped by their health insurance.

Second, there is the issue of the patenting of human genes. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted thousands of patents on human genetic sequences, including many associated with hereditary diseases. Genes associated with breast cancer, ovarian cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, hereditary hemochromatosis, and some types of asthma, melanoma, and colorectal cancer are just some examples of genes that have been patented. Patent holders have exclusive control over these genes for 20 years, during which time they can prevent anyone else from studying the genes or testing patients for harmful mutations. While the purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation, the high licensing and diagnostic testing fees that some biotech companies charge for use of “their” genes are inhibiting biomedical research and interfering with patient care. Both Joanna Rudnick (the director, producer, and subject of In the Family) and Christina Applegate have drawn attention to the fact that the BRCA test, offered exclusively by BRCA gene patent owner Myriad Genetics, costs up to $3,000 and is not covered by all insurances, raising issues of access for many women, particularly poor women and women of color. In addition, patents on human genes raise troubling questions about the right of patients to access information about themselves and whether parts of human beings should be patentable at all.

As the 23rd annual National Breast Cancer Awareness Month begins, and as the conversations about BRCA testing continue, let’s bring to the fore a discussion about the fundamental rights to access and freedom from discrimination that are essential in order for women, their doctors, and researchers to work together to combat breast cancer and make the best healthcare decisions.

Congratulations to Tom McCarthy and the all the folks behind The Visitor, which yesterday took the top prize at the 34th Deauville Film Festival. I like to think of The Visitor as the little independent film that could: Aside from universal accolades from critics and audiences, it has brought humanity, as well as a new voice and heightened awareness to the “hot button” issue of U.S. immigration policy. Reuters/The Hollywood Reporter reports that in collecting his Grand Prix trophy, McCarthy underlined the political intent of the film, saying that he “believes in the power of art to effect change”.

I couldn’t agree more.

On Friday, I thought nothing could make me feel sicker than the food poisoning I had been stricken with the day before. Then I read an op-ed by Andrew Klavan in the Wall Street Journal likening George W. Bush to Batman, and I realized I was wrong. In “What Bush and Batman Have in Common,” Klavan writes:

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society — in which people sometimes make the wrong choices — and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

One of the things that makes “Batman” such a great film is that it raises many timely and relevant questions about truth and justice, right and wrong. Bill Triplett from Variety said it well in his “Wilshire and Washington” post in response to this piece:

Like Batman, W has had to do morally questionable things to defend our values, and, because of that, the country is angry at him, Klavan lectures and concludes. Presumably also like W, Batman took an unconscionable amount of time to respond to a natural disaster of immediately epic proportions, stood by as Gotham’s economy went down the toilet, disdained any attempt to question his judgment and kept telling the citizenry that his war was succeeding when it wasn’t.

“That’s real moral complexity,” Klavan writes without the slightest trace of irony, which is usually in short supply in revenge fantasies. The real irony? “The Dark Knight” does indeed traffic in moral ambivalence, but George Bush has never even acknowledged that such a thing exists.

Trumbo, a documentary film released today, tells the story of blacklisted screenwriter Dalton Trumbo’s courage in resolutely refusing to name names before the House Un-American Activities Committee in the darkest days of the anti-Communist witch hunts of the 1940s and 50s. The film has great relevance for today’s troubled times, and serves as a powerful reminder of why principles matter and how the failure to abide by them can result in lasting damage.

Dalton Trumbo was one of the most celebrated screenwriters of his day. As one of the “Hollywood 10,” he refused to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947. For this, he was sentenced to prison and along with hundreds of other less famous workers in his industry was banned from employment in Hollywood for more than a decade.

The film is directed by Peter Askin and written by Trumbo’s son, Christopher Trumbo. Askin cast a set of leading film stars (Joan Allen, Michael Douglas, David Strathairn, Nathan Lane, Donald Sutherland and more) — to read from dozens of Trumbo’s remarkable private letters. He uses wonderful archival film clips and recent interviews to weave together a powerful tale and an important lesson from the McCarthy period.

The ACLU is grateful to be chosen as a beneficiary of a percentage of the proceeds of the film. It is a very generous gift on the part of the filmmakers, but I could only think that the award is being bestowed to a group whose record is “most improved.”

For in those troubled times, the ACLU was often much too timid, and at worst, conflicted and counterproductive. The debate within the ACLU in many ways mirrored the treacherous debate in Hollywood. Leading forces within the organization insisted that the protection of “national security” would provide the greatest protection for civil liberties. Although the ACLU helped to defend the Hollywood 10, the organization was still anxious to eschew any label as a “communist front” and even established an internal “loyalty oath,” a tool that some ACLU leaders believed would bolster the organization’s credibility and therefore allow it to be an even more effective defender of civil liberties.

It was a Faustian bargain. In hindsight, we know that it weakened our defense of the First Amendment at that critical time, and diminished the organization’s early legitimacy. It also created great dissent among some of the fledgling new ACLU affiliates. Fortunately, it did serve as a bitter lesson that helped forge the organization’s future role as an unrelenting advocate of civil liberties.

Fast forward through the next 50 years, and no one would suggest that the ACLU has been too timid or compromising. Especially during the past seven years as we have witnessed perhaps the greatest assault ever on civil liberties, the ACLU has responded with great clarity to White House threats and actions to limit civil liberties in the name of national security. The ACLU has not only risen to the challenge, but we have boldly fought back on every front during this similar period.

Perhaps no action has been clearer than the recent establishment of the John Adams Project, which provides direct representation to detainees facing prosecution at Guantánamo because of our grave concern that the military commissions process is an affront to justice. The ACLU believes that the military commission’s authorization of the use of coerced evidence possibly derived from torture, secret evidence, and hearsay is unconstitutional and counter to our constitutional traditions. This abuse of power requires our extraordinary leadership and effort. Clearly we have cast off the misgivings of the 1950s that kept less popular clients at bay.

Dalton Trumbo paid a very high price for adhering to his principles. The new film portrays well the havoc that was wreaked upon him, his friends and his family. It also shows how few were willing to stand with him during this perilous time and the bitter legacy when liberty is lost.

The film also underscores the vital role that the arts play in providing the narrative that brings these important principles to life. It is quite a moving experience to see some of today’s most celebrated actors read the stirring commentary of one of our most accomplished and persecuted writers.

In recognition of the importance of this platform, the ACLU has launched a new program, “Rights/Camera/Action,” which uses the arts and popular culture as a forum for civil liberties discussion with artists and entertainers to encourage deeper conversations that tap into our core civil liberties values.

Today as the ACLU marks its 88th year, it is a much wiser and stronger organization. We are proud and also deeply humbled — to be recognized by the makers of the movie Trumbo with their support of our essential work.