 |
Prom Drama in Alabama Cynthia Stewart, a junior at Tharptown High School in northern Alabama, feels like any other 17-year-old girl does about prom—she's been dreaming about going to the big event for years. As a member of the prom planning committee, she created the theme that the other students agreed upon for the upcoming March 25 dance. She also sold candy and magazine subscriptions, raising over $200 for the event. The only difference between Cynthia and the other students excitedly planning months in advance for the prom? Cynthia is a lesbian, and the date she wants to bring is her girlfriend. Students at Tharptown High School are required to get the school's permission if they want to bring any non-student to prom. Since her girlfriend goes to a different school in the area, Cynthia asked for the principal's okay. He said no. When Cynthia's aunt and guardian, Kathy Baker, appealed the decision to the school board, they turned her down. So last week, Kathy and Cynthia went to see local civil rights attorney Henry F. Sherrod III—who just happens to be on the board of the ACLU of Alabama. The ACLU sent a letter to the school last week, demanding that the school allow Cynthia to bring her girlfriend to the prom. While we're still waiting to hear directly from the school, the principal has made some statements to local media that he will relent. Thankfully, this leaves Cynthia plenty of time to decide on a corsage. >>Learn more about this case. back to top One Big Disappointment, Lots of Victories The loss in Maine earlier this month, where voters rejected a law that would have given same-sex couples the right to marry, was deeply disappointing and discouraging. But despite this disappointment, there were many victories for LGBT equality in elections across the country last week. Washington Washington state approvedReferendum 71. The 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. Kalamazoo, Michigan In spite of 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. Maine In Maine, despite amazing efforts by the NO on 1 campaign and a host of coalition partners, we lost. Yet, 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. >>Learn more about the ACLU’s work to promote equality. back to top
| November 21, 2009
By Louise Melling, Director, ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project As the Senate begins to work in earnest on its version of health care reform, the reproductive freedom of millions of American women is on the line. That's because, as you know, anti-choice extremists in the House succeeded in their effort to make vitally important health care legislation a vehicle for advancing their anti-choice agenda. 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 had every reason to expect a principled approach to health care reform that would reflect that reality. But politics and ideology came together in a toxic mix when the House of Representatives added the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act. If this amendment is part of the final health care legislation, anyone who participates in the health care exchange will be prohibited from buying a plan that covers abortion care if they receive a federal subsidy. This isn't, as its sponsors claim, an attempt to make sure health care legislation maintains the "status quo" when it comes to federal funds not being spent on abortions. It is an effort to dramatically alter the landscape. It would, among other things, leave many women who now have abortion coverage without it after reform. The anti-abortion agenda is now in full view. The ACLU strongly condemns the Stupak-Pitts amendment and is calling on our members to take action to ensure that the provision does not survive. >>Take action now! Urge our country's leaders to reject anti-choice efforts to hijack health care by signing our petition today. back to top Last Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder officially announced that the five defendants who have been charged in the 9/11 attacks will be tried in federal court, rather than in the unconstitutional Guantánamo military commissions. This is a clear victory for the rule of law, and we thank all of you who have supported the ACLU in our efforts to shed light on the injustices of the military commissions proceedings at Guantánamo Bay. But, this victory is bittersweet because Holder indicated that some detainees would be tried in the unlawful military commissions system. The ACLU will continue to push for the complete closure of Guantánamo and an end to the military commissions and any system of indefinite detention. In the meantime, take the time to celebrate this victory for the rule of law. >>Take action now! Join us in urging Attorney General Eric Holder to move all the Guantánamo military commissions cases to federal court — a system of justice that upholds our values and laws. back to top ACLU Sues Government Officials on Behalf of American Citizen Illegally Detained in East Africa Last week, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Amir Meshal, an American citizen who was arrested and secretly imprisoned in Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia for four months. He was held in secret, without access to a lawyer or any process to contest his detention, and was never charged with a crime. He endured more than 30 harsh interrogations by U.S. officials during his detention. A New Jersey native, Mr. Meshal was studying Islam in Mogadishu, Somalia in December 2006 when hostilities broke out. Unable to flee the country by air because the airport had been disabled due to bombing, Mr. Meshal fled to neighboring Kenya by boat and wandered in the forest for three weeks seeking shelter and assistance before being arrested by a joint U.S.-Kenyan-Ethiopian task force. He was detained and turned over to U.S. officials, who interrogated him and sought to coerce him into confessing that he was connected to or had supported al Qaeda—connections and actions that Mr. Meshal steadfastly denied. One FBI agent threatened to send him to Egypt, where the Egyptians “had ways of making him talk.” Another FBI agent threatened to send Mr. Meshal to Israel, where—the interrogator said—the Israelis would “make him disappear.” Mr. Meshal’s lawsuit charges that four U.S. government officials violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process and Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. Mr. Meshal also claims that two of these officials—agents of the FBI—threatened him with torture and disappearance in violation of his rights under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. “The harsh treatment that Mr. Meshal endured should never be experienced by anyone, let alone an American citizen at the hands of his own government,” said Nusrat Choudhury, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “American citizens don't relinquish their constitutional rights or their right to be protected from threats of torture and disappearance by U.S. officials when they're overseas.” >>Learn more about this case and the ACLU’s work to end extraordinary rendition. back to top TSA Fixes Search Policy After ACLU Sues
Following a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has revised its policies governing airline passenger screening to make clear that TSA agents are authorized to conduct searches related to safeguarding flight safety, not to engage in general law enforcement. These policy changes are a victory for civil liberties, and the ACLU has moved to drop the lawsuit now that the agency’s new directive addresses the unconstitutional policies which the lawsuit challenged. In June, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Steven Bierfeldt, who was detained on March 29, 2009 at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and interrogated by TSA officials for nearly half an hour after he passed through a security checkpoint X-ray machine with a metal box containing $4,700 in cash. Mr. Bierfeldt was carrying the cash in connection with his duties as the Director of Development for the Campaign for Liberty, a political organization that grew out of Congressman Ron Paul's presidential campaign. Mr. Bierfeldt repeatedly asked the agents to explain the scope of their authority to detain and interrogate him and received no explanation. Instead, the agents escalated the threatening tone of their questions and ultimately told Mr. Bierfeldt that he was being placed under arrest. Mr. Bierfeldt recorded audio of the incident with his iPhone. In the lawsuit, Mr. Bierfeldt and the ACLU sought a court order requiring the TSA to bring its search policies into line with constitutional requirements for passenger privacy, arguing that passengers moving through pre-flight screening can only be subject to searches aimed at keeping weapons and explosives off airplanes. Mr. Bierfeldt’s experience proved that TSA searches had taken on a much broader scope. In September, eight days before the government’s response to the ACLU lawsuit was due, the TSA issued a new directive governing passenger screening searches. The new policy states clearly that “screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security.” In October, the TSA issued a second directive addressing the issues raised in the ACLU’s lawsuit, stating that “traveling with large amounts of currency is not illegal,” and that to the extent bulk quantities of cash warrant searching, it is only to further security objectives. “It is a huge victory for civil liberties that TSA agents no longer have free reign to conduct sweeping, baseless searches and detain passengers who don’t pose a threat to flight safety,” said Bierfeldt. “I do not believe I should give up my constitutional rights each time I choose to travel by plane, and I certainly do not want another innocent American to have to endure what I went through." >>Read Steve Bierfeldt’s response to the TSA’s new policy. >>Learn more about this case. back to top Justice Denied: Voices from Guantánamo
Recently, the ACLU released a new video featuring five former Guantánamo detainees talking about their experiences in U.S. custody. Part of a larger series, “Justice Denied: Voices from Guantánamo” aims to put a human face on the Bush administration’s failed detention and interrogation policies.
The men in the video were detained by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Guantánamo for years, without charge or trial, and without any meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention. But now they are finally free. Watch the video to hear their stories.
The ACLU is committed to combating any system of detention that violates fundamental principles of American justice and is committed to seeking accountability for the torture and abuse of detainees carried out in America’s name. Court Upholds Right of Scientists and Patients to Challenge Gene Patents
A federal district court ruled earlier this month that patients and scientists can challenge patents on human genes in court, allowing a lawsuit challenging patents on two human genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer to move forward.
The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), a not-for-profit organization affiliated with Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. The groups charge that the patents are illegal and restrict both scientific freedom and patients' access to medical care—and that patents on human genes violate the First Amendment and patent law because genes are "products of nature."
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case, but last week’s ruling allows the lawsuit to proceed.
Because the ACLU's lawsuit challenges the whole notion of gene patenting, its outcome could have far-reaching effects beyond the patents on the BRCA 1/2 genes. Approximately 20 percent of all human genes are patented, including genes associated with Alzheimer's disease, muscular dystrophy, colon cancer, asthma and many other illnesses.
The court's opinion noted the significance of this case stating, "The widespread use of gene sequence information as the foundation for biomedical research means that resolution of these issues will have far-reaching implications, not only for gene-based health care and the health of millions of women facing the specter of breast cancer, but also for the future course of biomedical research."
"We hope this challenge is the beginning of the end to patents on genes, which limit scientific research, learning and the free flow of information," said Chris Hansen, a staff attorney with the ACLU First Amendment Working Group. "No one should be able to patent a part of the human body."
>>Learn more about this landmark case.
back to top
|
No comments:
Post a Comment