Cambodia : Technical Assistance Report-Government Finance Statistics

Cambodia : Technical Assistance Report-Government Finance Statistics
Published October 29, 2020 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: The Dangers of Expanding What Can Be Patented In the Age of COVID-19

The Dangers of Expanding What Can Be Patented In the Age of COVID-19

As the COVID-19 crisis takes its devastating toll, the need for scientific collaboration is self-evident. After the first outbreaks, scientists in China sequenced the viral genome and released that data, permitting laboratories globally to develop their own tests to diagnose patients for COVID. 

Yet, members of Congress, led by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), have pointed to the pandemic as a reason to radically change patent law. The changes would allow corporations to have exclusive rights over genes, connections between genomes and disease, and other products and laws of nature, inhibiting scientific innovation.

Contrary to the arguments offered by Sen. Tillis and his allies in Congress, changing patent law to permit exclusivity on natural phenomena would give companies the ability to charge excessive fees for genetic testing to detect increased risk for diseases such as breast cancer, drive up patient costs for coronavirus testing, and inhibit scientific progress. That is why the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of North Carolina have launched a campaign to educate people about the dangers these changes to Section 101 of the Patent Act pose, and to ask Sen. Tillis to abandon these efforts. The current ongoing public health crisis is an excellent example of what’s at risk if these patent law changes move forward.

Today, scientists around the world are contributing information about the thousands of new strains of coronavirus they have sequenced, data that is vital to understanding the virus and developing testing and treatments. While there have certainly been serious problems with sufficient access to tests in the United States, the issue is not that laboratories lack patent protection to develop them. Dozens of laboratories have created and are offering diagnostic tests.

Imagine an alternate scenario: The first laboratory to sequence the COVID-19 genome immediately files for patent protection on the genome and its connection to disease, threatens other labs that want to test for the virus with patent infringement suits, and seeks to monopolize testing. Other labs follow their example, and soon different strains of the novel coronavirus are subject to competing patent claims, impeding the ability of the scientific and medical communities to freely investigate the virus and its evolution.

This scenario is not fantastical. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office adopted a policy in 2001 authorizing patents on genes once they were “isolated” or removed from their natural environment. Patents covering many thousands of genes and their connections to health conditions were issued, and patent holders exercised their rights to stop others from sequencing those genes, even when the other laboratories were using different, more comprehensive, or less costly methods. 

The ACLU represented 20 leading medical professional associations, geneticists, breast and ovarian cancer patients, and women’s health advocacy groups to challenge the Patent Office’s policy. In 2013, we won a unanimous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, which drew on over 150 years of precedent prohibiting patents on laws of nature, products of nature, and abstract ideas. By invalidating patents on two genes connected to hereditary risk for breast, ovarian, and other cancers, the court broke the monopoly controlled by the patentholder on all testing that could be conducted in the United States.   
 
Outraged by the Supreme Court’s decisions in our case and two others, the patent bar unleashed a major lobbying campaign to overturn them. Their efforts gained steam during the summer of 2019, when a group of senators and representatives, led by Sen. Thom Tillis as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, jointly issued a draft bill that would explicitly retract all of the Supreme Court case law barring patents on laws of nature, products of nature, and abstract ideas.

Over 160 medical, scientific, patient advocacy and civil rights organizations as well as over 80 biomedical scientists led by Drs. Harold Varmus and David Baltimore opposed the proposal. We highlighted that allowing patents on natural materials, natural processes, and ideas could “hamstring basic science and slow discovery, thereby compromising the nation’s ability to enhance the quality of health care and foster economic progress.” 
 
Shockingly, patent proponents are seizing on the COVID-19 crisis to renew their calls to expand what is eligible to be patented. They assert that companies were slow to develop diagnostic tests for the novel coronavirus because they lacked certainty that they could obtain patents. They are, in effect, asking for the ability to charge monopoly prices for testing of a new disease that is causing a global public health crisis. And they are pushing for permanent changes to patent law that will undermine medical practice and scientific research well after this crisis ends.

Since the outbreak, the ACLU has emphasized the need to respect the expertise of public health officials and scientists while preserving our civil rights and civil liberties. Our advice for Congress and patent policymakers is no different when it comes to patents. Many in the medical and scientific communities already have recognized how over-reaching patents would only hinder progress, calling for open science partnerships or adoption of the “Open COVID Pledge” – which commits to making intellectual property available for use in ending the pandemic and minimizing the impact of the disease, free of charge.

As the COVID-19 crisis makes clear, we all have a stake in how far patents reach. Patents dictate who has access to scientific breakthroughs, when, and at what cost. Granting exclusive rights over what belongs to the public impedes, rather than fosters, innovation and discovery. There will be many different ways we must mobilize to address the pandemic. Drastically expanding what can be patented should not be one of them.

Published October 30, 2020 at 05:00PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3oFTgIf

ACLU: The Dangers of Expanding what can be Patented in the Age of COVID-19

The Dangers of Expanding what can be Patented in the Age of COVID-19

As the COVID-19 crisis takes its devastating toll, the need for scientific collaboration is self-evident. After the first outbreaks, scientists in China sequenced the viral genome and released that data, permitting laboratories globally to develop their own tests to diagnose patients for COVID. 

Yet, members of Congress, led by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), have pointed to the pandemic as a reason to radically change patent law. The changes would allow corporations to have exclusive rights over genes, connections between genomes and disease, and other products and laws of nature, inhibiting scientific innovation.

Contrary to the arguments offered by Sen. Tillis and his allies in Congress, changing patent law to permit exclusivity on natural phenomena would give companies the ability to charge excessive fees for genetic testing to detect increased risk for diseases such as breast cancer, drive up patient costs for coronavirus testing, and inhibit scientific progress. That is why the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of North Carolina have launched a campaign to educate people about the dangers these changes to Section 101 of the Patent Act pose, and to ask Sen. Tillis to abandon these efforts. The current ongoing public health crisis is an excellent example of what’s at risk if these patent law changes move forward.

Today, scientists around the world are contributing information about the thousands of new strains of coronavirus they have sequenced, data that is vital to understanding the virus and developing testing and treatments. While there have certainly been serious problems with sufficient access to tests in the United States, the issue is not that laboratories lack patent protection to develop them. Dozens of laboratories have created and are offering diagnostic tests.

Imagine an alternate scenario: The first laboratory to sequence the COVID-19 genome immediately files for patent protection on the genome and its connection to disease, threatens other labs that want to test for the virus with patent infringement suits, and seeks to monopolize testing. Other labs follow their example, and soon different strains of the novel coronavirus are subject to competing patent claims, impeding the ability of the scientific and medical communities to freely investigate the virus and its evolution.

This scenario is not fantastical. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office adopted a policy in 2001 authorizing patents on genes once they were “isolated” or removed from their natural environment. Patents covering many thousands of genes and their connections to health conditions were issued, and patent holders exercised their rights to stop others from sequencing those genes, even when the other laboratories were using different, more comprehensive, or less costly methods. 

The ACLU represented 20 leading medical professional associations, geneticists, breast and ovarian cancer patients, and women’s health advocacy groups to challenge the Patent Office’s policy. In 2013, we won a unanimous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, which drew on over 150 years of precedent prohibiting patents on laws of nature, products of nature, and abstract ideas. By invalidating patents on two genes connected to hereditary risk for breast, ovarian, and other cancers, the court broke the monopoly controlled by the patentholder on all testing that could be conducted in the United States.   
 
Outraged by the Supreme Court’s decisions in our case and two others, the patent bar unleashed a major lobbying campaign to overturn them. Their efforts gained steam during the summer of 2019, when a group of senators and representatives, led by Sen. Thom Tillis as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, jointly issued a draft bill that would explicitly retract all of the Supreme Court case law barring patents on laws of nature, products of nature, and abstract ideas.

Over 160 medical, scientific, patient advocacy and civil rights organizations as well as over 80 biomedical scientists led by Drs. Harold Varmus and David Baltimore opposed the proposal. We highlighted that allowing patents on natural materials, natural processes, and ideas could “hamstring basic science and slow discovery, thereby compromising the nation’s ability to enhance the quality of health care and foster economic progress.” 
 
Shockingly, patent proponents are seizing on the COVID-19 crisis to renew their calls to expand what is eligible to be patented. They assert that companies were slow to develop diagnostic tests for the novel coronavirus because they lacked certainty that they could obtain patents. They are, in effect, asking for the ability to charge monopoly prices for testing of a new disease that is causing a global public health crisis. And they are pushing for permanent changes to patent law that will undermine medical practice and scientific research well after this crisis ends.

Since the outbreak, the ACLU has emphasized the need to respect the expertise of public health officials and scientists while preserving our civil rights and civil liberties. Our advice for Congress and patent policymakers is no different when it comes to patents. Many in the medical and scientific communities already have recognized how over-reaching patents would only hinder progress, calling for open science partnerships or adoption of the “Open COVID Pledge” – which commits to making intellectual property available for use in ending the pandemic and minimizing the impact of the disease, free of charge.

As the COVID-19 crisis makes clear, we all have a stake in how far patents reach. Patents dictate who has access to scientific breakthroughs, when, and at what cost. Granting exclusive rights over what belongs to the public impedes, rather than fosters, innovation and discovery. There will be many different ways we must mobilize to address the pandemic. Drastically expanding what can be patented should not be one of them.

Published October 30, 2020 at 10:30PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3oFTgIf

ACLU: Moving Forward: Muslims Belong Here

Moving Forward: Muslims Belong Here

Four years ago, an election altered the reality of Muslims in America and all over the globe. As president, Donald Trump made real his promise to ban Muslims by abusing his authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Once that ban was legitimized by the Supreme Court, he used the same authority to issue ban after ban, discriminating against Black and Brown people in furtherance of his white supremacist agenda.
 
As we round the corner on this presidential term, it is critical that these discriminatory bans and all the related policies, including social media vetting, are rescinded and a more stringent standard is put in place to protect against these abuses of authority by future presidents. Every executive order and proclamation using authority INA 212(f) must be rescinded immediately and the original National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act (NO BAN Act) must be signed into law to protect the American people from such discrimination and abuse moving forward.
 
Throughout his campaign, Trump promised to ban Muslims from the United States with naked vitriol that disregarded the Constitution and the American ideal of equality. In the days and weeks that followed, people from all walks of life preemptively promised to register with Muslims if Trump created a registry, and safety pins became a symbol to express silent solidarity for all who might be attacked. In an attempt to prevent harm to Muslims in its final days, the Obama administration dismantled the framework for the original post-9/11 registration program, National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). Few realized the forthcoming reality, and instead many hoped that Trump’s campaign was an attempt to garner the votes with his base and would not manifest in discriminatory policies.
 
That hope was short-lived. Just one week into his presidency, Trump issued his Muslim ban, sending his own administration into disarray and our country into chaos. But this time it was different. Instead of the public silence that followed NSEERS, as people were disappeared from our country, many were outraged and ready to act. In hours, airports nationwide were flooded with protesters demanding that Muslims be let into the country. Members of Congress, including Rep. John Lewis, showed up and waited for every person at the airport to be released.
 
It was a defining moment in American history: an uprising that made our collective resistance to oppression and discrimination clear.
 
However, the will of the people is not always immediately reflected in the outcomes of our government or our systems. Though numerous courts rejected Trump’s ban and cited its naked discrimination and animus, the administration repeatedly re-enacted it — and even claimed that the third version of the ban was the result of a secret process that was disconnected from the President’s promise to ban Muslims from the United States. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that claim gave it just enough cover to uphold the third Muslim ban, in a 5-4 ruling that is one of the court’s historic failures.
 
It was not the first time the Supreme Court failed, and it likely won’t be the last. One of the most infamous Supreme Court failures was allowing the incarceration of Japanese people in America through so-called internment camps. It was 40 years after Fred Korematsu refused to submit to Japanese incarceration camps that his conviction was finally overturned in federal court, though the Supreme Court decision still stood. A few years later, a bill was passed and signed into law providing redress and reparations for those who were incarcerated. A few months after that, Fred Korematsu was awarded a Medal of Freedom. Indeed, he spent his life fighting for these freedoms and recognition alongside numerous advocacy organizations and people all over the country. It’s no surprise that his daughter, Karen Korematsu, founded the Korematsu Institute and has played a critical role in defending the rights of Muslims.
 
Much like Japanese incarceration, the Trump administration used fear-mongering under the veil of “national security” to further its discriminatory agenda — this time by suspending visas under INA 212(f) to repeatedly ban Black and Brown people. It began with the Muslim and refugee bans, and once legitimized by the Supreme Court, it extended to more countries, specifically targeting Africans, as well as the asylum ban and a ban on certain people unable to prove they would have health insurance products. Once the pandemic hit, Trump used the same authority to issue ban after ban — again, preying on people’s fears while failing to implement an effective response or meet people’s need for COVID-relief.
 
Eventually though, the systems catch up with the people they represent — though many get hurt along the way. Muslims, along with other Black and Brown people, have been hurting for far too long.
 
It is time to rescind the Muslim ban, all the bans that came after it, and the corresponding policies. It is time to put a more stringent standard in place to prevent future abuses of this authority, like that in the original NO BAN Act. It is time for civil rights and liberties again.

Published October 30, 2020 at 09:01PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/35M0bXz

ACLU: Moving Forward: Muslims Belong Here

Moving Forward: Muslims Belong Here

Four years ago, an election altered the reality of Muslims in America and all over the globe. As president, Donald Trump made real his promise to ban Muslims by abusing his authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Once that ban was legitimized by the Supreme Court, he used the same authority to issue ban after ban, discriminating against Black and Brown people in furtherance of his white supremacist agenda.
 
As we round the corner on this presidential term, it is critical that these discriminatory bans and all the related policies, including social media vetting, are rescinded and a more stringent standard is put in place to protect against these abuses of authority by future presidents. Every executive order and proclamation using authority INA 212(f) must be rescinded immediately and the original National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act (NO BAN Act) must be signed into law to protect the American people from such discrimination and abuse moving forward.
 
Throughout his campaign, Trump promised to ban Muslims from the United States with naked vitriol that disregarded the Constitution and the American ideal of equality. In the days and weeks that followed, people from all walks of life preemptively promised to register with Muslims if Trump created a registry, and safety pins became a symbol to express silent solidarity for all who might be attacked. In an attempt to prevent harm to Muslims in its final days, the Obama administration dismantled the framework for the original post-9/11 registration program, National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). Few realized the forthcoming reality, and instead many hoped that Trump’s campaign was an attempt to garner the votes with his base and would not manifest in discriminatory policies.
 
That hope was short-lived. Just one week into his presidency, Trump issued his Muslim ban, sending his own administration into disarray and our country into chaos. But this time it was different. Instead of the public silence that followed NSEERS, as people were disappeared from our country, many were outraged and ready to act. In hours, airports nationwide were flooded with protesters demanding that Muslims be let into the country. Members of Congress, including Rep. John Lewis, showed up and waited for every person at the airport to be released.
 
It was a defining moment in American history: an uprising that made our collective resistance to oppression and discrimination clear.
 
However, the will of the people is not always immediately reflected in the outcomes of our government or our systems. Though numerous courts rejected Trump’s ban and cited its naked discrimination and animus, the administration repeatedly re-enacted it — and even claimed that the third version of the ban was the result of a secret process that was disconnected from the President’s promise to ban Muslims from the United States. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that claim gave it just enough cover to uphold the third Muslim ban, in a 5-4 ruling that is one of the court’s historic failures.
 
It was not the first time the Supreme Court failed, and it likely won’t be the last. One of the most infamous Supreme Court failures was allowing the incarceration of Japanese people in America through so-called internment camps. It was 40 years after Fred Korematsu refused to submit to Japanese incarceration camps that his conviction was finally overturned in federal court, though the Supreme Court decision still stood. A few years later, a bill was passed and signed into law providing redress and reparations for those who were incarcerated. A few months after that, Fred Korematsu was awarded a Medal of Freedom. Indeed, he spent his life fighting for these freedoms and recognition alongside numerous advocacy organizations and people all over the country. It’s no surprise that his daughter, Karen Korematsu, founded the Korematsu Institute and has played a critical role in defending the rights of Muslims.
 
Much like Japanese incarceration, the Trump administration used fear-mongering under the veil of “national security” to further its discriminatory agenda — this time by suspending visas under INA 212(f) to repeatedly ban Black and Brown people. It began with the Muslim and refugee bans, and once legitimized by the Supreme Court, it extended to more countries, specifically targeting Africans, as well as the asylum ban and a ban on certain people unable to prove they would have health insurance products. Once the pandemic hit, Trump used the same authority to issue ban after ban — again, preying on people’s fears while failing to implement an effective response or meet people’s need for COVID-relief.
 
Eventually though, the systems catch up with the people they represent — though many get hurt along the way. Muslims, along with other Black and Brown people, have been hurting for far too long.
 
It is time to rescind the Muslim ban, all the bans that came after it, and the corresponding policies. It is time to put a more stringent standard in place to prevent future abuses of this authority, like that in the original NO BAN Act. It is time for civil rights and liberties again.

Published October 30, 2020 at 03:31PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/35M0bXz

ACLU: At the Polls, Episode 7: Why Do We Take Voting Rights Away in America?

At the Polls, Episode 7: Why Do We Take Voting Rights Away in America?

Across the country, over 5 million people who are of voting age cannot vote because of felony disenfranchisement laws, including one in five Black Americans. These laws are a relic of the Jim Crow era, and were intentionally designed to suppress the vote — particularly the Black vote — by limiting the impact of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

This week, Demetrius Jifunza, Lewis Conway, and Jennifer Taylor join us on At the Polls to share how these laws have impacted them personally after incarceration, and how states are fighting back. Listen to the podcast to learn more.

https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/918035251

Losing the right to vote isn’t the only way a felony conviction can derail life, long after a person completes their sentence. Having a criminal record can make it more difficult to get a job, secure housing, access health care, or even care for one’s children. These obstacles stand in the way of formerly incarcerated people trying to reenter society and rebuild their lives.

The good news is that several states are reforming felony disenfranchisement laws, often with bipartisan support. Listen to this week’s episode of At the Polls and subscribe to learn more about felony disenfranchisement and what’s being done to stop this voter suppression.

Published October 28, 2020 at 10:08PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3e6Lfr2

ACLU: At the Polls, Episode 7: Why Do We Take Voting Rights Away in America?

At the Polls, Episode 7: Why Do We Take Voting Rights Away in America?

Across the country, over 5 million people who are of voting age cannot vote because of felony disenfranchisement laws, including one in five Black Americans. These laws are a relic of the Jim Crow era, and were intentionally designed to suppress the vote — particularly the Black vote — by limiting the impact of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

This week, Demetrius Jifunza, Lewis Conway, and Jennifer Taylor join us on At the Polls to share how these laws have impacted them personally after incarceration, and how states are fighting back. Listen to the podcast to learn more.

https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/918035251

Losing the right to vote isn’t the only way a felony conviction can derail life, long after a person completes their sentence. Having a criminal record can make it more difficult to get a job, secure housing, access health care, or even care for one’s children. These obstacles stand in the way of formerly incarcerated people trying to reenter society and rebuild their lives.

The good news is that several states are reforming felony disenfranchisement laws, often with bipartisan support. Listen to this week’s episode of At the Polls and subscribe to learn more about felony disenfranchisement and what’s being done to stop this voter suppression.

Published October 28, 2020 at 04:38PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3e6Lfr2

ACLU: Racial Justice Demands That Every Vote Is Counted

Racial Justice Demands That Every Vote Is Counted

This year, ensuring every mail-in ballot is counted is more important than ever. While the share of voters casting ballots by mail has grown steadily in recent years, the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic triggered a surge in mail-in voting during primaries that has continued in the lead-up to Election Day. Already, 90.7 million absentee ballots have been requested or sent to voters in 50 states and the District of Columbia. Critically, a growing number of people of color plan to vote by mail rather than in-person in this election. 

Anticipating this unprecedented surge in absentee ballots, the ACLU Analytics team generated estimates of absentee voting volume by race and candidate support by vote method in every county in the battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. The team combined data gathered by a nationwide representative tracking survey conducted by YouGov with turnout modeling based on updated in-cycle ballot data to construct estimates through statistical modeling. Our findings identify which counties potentially face the largest racial representation gap — that is, if the absentee ballot count is not completed, they will cause the biggest disenfranchisement of voters of color. What happens in these counties may well change the course and outcome of the election.

Across all four states, we found that the key geographies to watch will be the greater metro areas with large populations of people of color, such as Detroit, Milwaukee, Madison, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta. Failing to fully count the absentee votes in the counties that are home to these metro areas would mean disregarding between 32.9 percent (in Gwinnett County, Georgia) and 61.4 percent (in Washtenaw County, Michigan) of the votes of people of color. 

While any call about the outcome of the election before many ballots are counted is improper,  the fact that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania don’t begin processing ballots until Election Day or the day before increases the odds of confusing, unfounded, and premature victory calls before all ballots have been counted. Further, Georgia has the largest gap in vote-by-mail usage by race. While ballot processing can happen earlier, a time crunch and election staff shortages mean a quick count is not assured. 

Attempts to suppress the by-mail vote and the voices of voters of color — whether through delays, ballot rejections, or outright interference with the full count — can absolutely change the outcomes of the election this year. We must keep an eagle eye on the counties identified in our report and make sure the mail-in vote is counted completely and accurately. Mishandling or miscounting ballots in these counties could perpetuate the historical disenfranchisement of voters of color with which we are all too familiar. 

In spite of past elections that may have primed voters to expect a winner to be declared the night of the election, it’s vital for us all to remember that the official winner is never truly known on election night. In every election, the results called on election night are based on projections of unofficial tallies. Sufficient results to even make those projections may take days if not weeks, and for the sake of accuracy, that’s a good thing. This year, discounting the mail-in vote would disenfranchise voters of color and distort the election outcome. Ensuring that every vote — whether cast by mail, early, or in-person on Election Day — is counted must be the responsibility and priority of election officials everywhere. Pundits and politicians don’t decide the outcome of the election — voters do. 

Published October 28, 2020 at 03:57PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3kC3WoP

ACLU: Racial Justice Demands That Every Vote Is Counted

Racial Justice Demands That Every Vote Is Counted

This year, ensuring every mail-in ballot is counted is more important than ever. While the share of voters casting ballots by mail has grown steadily in recent years, the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic triggered a surge in mail-in voting during primaries that has continued in the lead-up to Election Day. Already, 90.7 million absentee ballots have been requested or sent to voters in 50 states and the District of Columbia. Critically, a growing number of people of color plan to vote by mail rather than in-person in this election. 

Anticipating this unprecedented surge in absentee ballots, the ACLU Analytics team generated estimates of absentee voting volume by race and candidate support by vote method in every county in the battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. The team combined data gathered by a nationwide representative tracking survey conducted by YouGov with turnout modeling based on updated in-cycle ballot data to construct estimates through statistical modeling. Our findings identify which counties potentially face the largest racial representation gap — that is, if the absentee ballot count is not completed, they will cause the biggest disenfranchisement of voters of color. What happens in these counties may well change the course and outcome of the election.

Across all four states, we found that the key geographies to watch will be the greater metro areas with large populations of people of color, such as Detroit, Milwaukee, Madison, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta. Failing to fully count the absentee votes in the counties that are home to these metro areas would mean disregarding between 32.9 percent (in Gwinnett County, Georgia) and 61.4 percent (in Washtenaw County, Michigan) of the votes of people of color. 

While any call about the outcome of the election before many ballots are counted is improper,  the fact that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania don’t begin processing ballots until Election Day or the day before increases the odds of confusing, unfounded, and premature victory calls before all ballots have been counted. Further, Georgia has the largest gap in vote-by-mail usage by race. While ballot processing can happen earlier, a time crunch and election staff shortages mean a quick count is not assured. 

Attempts to suppress the by-mail vote and the voices of voters of color — whether through delays, ballot rejections, or outright interference with the full count — can absolutely change the outcomes of the election this year. We must keep an eagle eye on the counties identified in our report and make sure the mail-in vote is counted completely and accurately. Mishandling or miscounting ballots in these counties could perpetuate the historical disenfranchisement of voters of color with which we are all too familiar. 

In spite of past elections that may have primed voters to expect a winner to be declared the night of the election, it’s vital for us all to remember that the official winner is never truly known on election night. In every election, the results called on election night are based on projections of unofficial tallies. Sufficient results to even make those projections may take days if not weeks, and for the sake of accuracy, that’s a good thing. This year, discounting the mail-in vote would disenfranchise voters of color and distort the election outcome. Ensuring that every vote — whether cast by mail, early, or in-person on Election Day — is counted must be the responsibility and priority of election officials everywhere. Pundits and politicians don’t decide the outcome of the election — voters do. 

Published October 28, 2020 at 09:27PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3kC3WoP

ACLU: We’re Ready for the Election

We’re Ready for the Election

With less than a week to go, the only thing we can be sure of is that this Election Day will most likely look, feel, and be different than previous years. We are, after all, living through a pandemic, economic crisis, fight for racial justice, and an election season. 

If you haven’t planned how you are going to cast your vote or already voted this election, there’s still time. You can find more information here about how to make your voting plan, and learn about the specific guidelines in your state. If you plan to vote by mail, consider dropping off your ballot in-person at a drop box or election office. If you plan to vote in-person, make sure to check the location of your polling place or early vote center. You can also learn about your rights at the polls here. 

And just as we’ve been asking our supporters to make a plan to vote, we at the ACLU have been preparing for months and years for this Election Day: activating volunteers, motivating voters, and fighting for our rights across the country in courts, legislatures, and in the streets. 

The ACLU national office and our state affiliates and chapters have been working around the clock to protect and expand your access to the ballot this election season. Through litigation and advocacy, we’ve fought and scored 26 victories in 20 states and Puerto Rico to safeguard the right to vote. Together, these states are home to more than 154 million Americans and wield 247 votes in the Electoral College.

But our work doesn’t stop there. Our state offices are working with a network of election protection lawyers and volunteers on the ground to make sure every eligible American can exercise their constitutional right to vote and each and every vote is counted. The ACLU is at the ready to act swiftly and use all of the tools and resources at our disposal to protect the vote. If you have questions about casting your ballot or difficulty voting, remember you have the right to vote and help is a phone call away at 1-866-OUR-VOTE.
 
The ACLU doesn’t represent one party, person, or side. Our mission is to protect our democracy and realize its promise for all. This election, during a pandemic, is an all-hands-on-deck moment for our entire ACLU community. The ACLU was created in a time of deep crisis for our nation, and time and time again, we’ve been called on to defend freedom in the most difficult circumstances.   
 
For four years, people have counted on us to do everything we can to protect people’s rights and our democracy. We won’t back down. On behalf of every member of our ACLU staff, we will continue to defend our fundamental freedoms with all that it takes for as long as it takes. Even in the darkest periods in modern American history, the ACLU has never mourned the present.   

Published October 28, 2020 at 01:51AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3jCwzRk

ACLU: We’re Ready for the Election

We’re Ready for the Election

With less than a week to go, the only thing we can be sure of is that this Election Day will most likely look, feel, and be different than previous years. We are, after all, living through a pandemic, economic crisis, fight for racial justice, and an election season. 

If you haven’t planned how you are going to cast your vote or already voted this election, there’s still time. You can find more information here about how to make your voting plan, and learn about the specific guidelines in your state. If you plan to vote by mail, consider dropping off your ballot in-person at a drop box or election office. If you plan to vote in-person, make sure to check the location of your polling place or early vote center. You can also learn about your rights at the polls here. 

And just as we’ve been asking our supporters to make a plan to vote, we at the ACLU have been preparing for months and years for this Election Day: activating volunteers, motivating voters, and fighting for our rights across the country in courts, legislatures, and in the streets. 

The ACLU national office and our state affiliates and chapters have been working around the clock to protect and expand your access to the ballot this election season. Through litigation and advocacy, we’ve fought and scored 26 victories in 20 states and Puerto Rico to safeguard the right to vote. Together, these states are home to more than 154 million Americans and wield 247 votes in the Electoral College.

But our work doesn’t stop there. Our state offices are working with a network of election protection lawyers and volunteers on the ground to make sure every eligible American can exercise their constitutional right to vote and each and every vote is counted. The ACLU is at the ready to act swiftly and use all of the tools and resources at our disposal to protect the vote. If you have questions about casting your ballot or difficulty voting, remember you have the right to vote and help is a phone call away at 1-866-OUR-VOTE.
 
The ACLU doesn’t represent one party, person, or side. Our mission is to protect our democracy and realize its promise for all. This election, during a pandemic, is an all-hands-on-deck moment for our entire ACLU community. The ACLU was created in a time of deep crisis for our nation, and time and time again, we’ve been called on to defend freedom in the most difficult circumstances.   
 
For four years, people have counted on us to do everything we can to protect people’s rights and our democracy. We won’t back down. On behalf of every member of our ACLU staff, we will continue to defend our fundamental freedoms with all that it takes for as long as it takes. Even in the darkest periods in modern American history, the ACLU has never mourned the present.   

Published October 27, 2020 at 08:21PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3jCwzRk

ACLU: Dear Congress: Platform Accountability Should Not Threaten Online Expression

Dear Congress: Platform Accountability Should Not Threaten Online Expression

Tomorrow, the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing entitled “Does Section 230 Enable Big Tech Bad Behavior?” This is just the latest attempt by Congress and the Trump administration to amend, reinterpret, or eliminate Section 230, a key provision of federal law that generally ensures online platforms, including social media, can’t be held liable for the speech and content their users post on these platforms. This law means Yelp can’t be held legally responsible every time one of its users posts a false negative review. The Bed Bug Registry doesn’t have to visit every hotel with a magnifying glass to confirm reports from the public. And Facebook can offer a forum for billions of users to share their thoughts, pictures, memes, and videos freely without having to approve every post before they go up. 

Over the summer, Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for the Federal Communications Commission to commence a rulemaking to reinterpret Section 230 in ways entirely contrary to its purpose. Meanwhile, Congress has put forward numerous legislative proposals to amend 230. These efforts are confused at best. Many Republicans believe that the platforms at stake display an anti-conservative bias, disproportionately censoring and fact-checking conservative speakers. Many Democrats are concerned about censorship of communities of color, LGBTQ voices, and women and nonbinary people. Others are concerned that platforms promote disinformation, conspiracy theories, misinformation about voting, violence, and hate speech.

To sum up critics’ views: platforms are censoring people too much and not enough all at once. Somehow, policy makers think that the solution to these alleged problems is to expand the circumstances under which platforms can be liable for their users’ speech by amending Section 230. 

To be clear, amending this provision will not solve any of these concerns. In fact, many of the proposed changes would exacerbate over-censorship, and other proposals would promote the proliferation of misinformation about voting. Yet President Trump and Congress continue to advocate for changes to the law in an effort to encourage the censorship they like and discourage the censorship they don’t. 

Section 230, in addition to providing a shield against liability for users’ speech, enables online platforms to cultivate orderly, pleasant, and useful sites. While the biggest social media companies, responsible for hosting the speech of billions, should resist calls to censor lawful speech, Section 230 allows sites to delete abusive accounts, remove content that violates the site’s terms of service, or eliminate voter misinformation without risking liability for the speech that they do host.

Almost as important as what Section 230 protects is what it does not. Section 230 does not shield bad actors. If you harass or defame someone online, you are responsible for your illegal conduct. 

Moreover, platforms are liable for their own illegal conduct. They can be sued or prosecuted for the content they create and the conduct they engage in, or materially contribute to, that violates any law. That is why Illinois residents were able to sue Facebook under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act when the platform used facial recognition technology on them without their consent. And that’s why we were able to file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to challenge Facebook’s targeting of employment ads to younger men only, excluding all women, non-binary people, and older men. 

Section 230 has permitted platforms to host all kinds of user content, and created space for social movements like #MeToo and content creators on sites like Instagram, TikTok and Twitch to flourish. It has also enabled platforms to host the speech of activists and those organizing protests, from the Arab Spring to today’s protests against police brutality. If it weren’t for Section 230, website owners would be far more reluctant to freely permit public posts knowing that the site could be investigated, shut down, sued, or charged with a felony over one user’s illegal tweet or post — including that of the President. And if that protection is unavailable only for a certain category of content, as some proposed reinterpretations of the law propose, the platforms will censor far more speech related to that category than they could constitutionally be liable for, simply to spare themselves the massive court costs they could face.

This is exactly what has happened in the past. Congress last amended Section 230 in 2018, through a law called SESTA/FOSTA. It was purportedly aimed only at creating platform liability for illegal sex trafficking. We warned at the time that rather than face liability, platforms would engage in excessive censorship that would harm the LGTBTQ and sex worker communities in particular. As predicted, after SESTA/FOSTA’s passage, entire websites that provided forums for sex workers to connect, share information to protect themselves, and build community disappeared. Speech suffered, and so did the health and safety of vulnerable communities. If the EARN IT Act, which is currently moving through the Senate, becomes law, it will create similar harm.

Amending 230 to narrow the scope of the editorial decisions platforms can make while still receiving 230’s immunity shield can also be dangerous. For example, the Online Content Policy Modernization Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to mark up this week, would create new liability risks for platforms that “editorialize” or make virtually any other changes to user-generated content. That means sites that label and flag misleading or incorrect user speech, or point users to trusted and fact-checked sources to counter falsehoods, could be exposed to greater liability risk. Such a change could discourage sites like Twitter from providing links to factual information about mail-in ballots under tweets that blatantly lie about voting by mail, not unlike the incident that sparked President Trump’s executive order.

The desire on the part of policy makers to do more to create platform accountability is understandable. The ACLU shares that goal, and has long advocated for strong consumer privacy protections at the federal and state level for that very reason. We have also pressed the platforms to provide transparency and meaningful review processes for their content moderation practices. However, we should be wary of proposals that risk harming online expression and be skeptical of focusing on Section 230 as a method of requiring platform accountability. 

Section 230 protects people’s ability to create, communicate, and build community online. The ACLU will remain vigilant in ensuring that the internet continues to be a place for self-expression and creation for all. We urge members of Congress to do the same, particularly as they examine proposals to amend Section 230. 

Published October 27, 2020 at 02:46PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3mk6bxw

ACLU: Dear Congress: Platform Accountability Should Not Threaten Online Expression

Dear Congress: Platform Accountability Should Not Threaten Online Expression

Tomorrow, the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing entitled “Does Section 230 Enable Big Tech Bad Behavior?” This is just the latest attempt by Congress and the Trump administration to amend, reinterpret, or eliminate Section 230, a key provision of federal law that generally ensures online platforms, including social media, can’t be held liable for the speech and content their users post on these platforms. This law means Yelp can’t be held legally responsible every time one of its users posts a false negative review. The Bed Bug Registry doesn’t have to visit every hotel with a magnifying glass to confirm reports from the public. And Facebook can offer a forum for billions of users to share their thoughts, pictures, memes, and videos freely without having to approve every post before they go up. 

Over the summer, Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for the Federal Communications Commission to commence a rulemaking to reinterpret Section 230 in ways entirely contrary to its purpose. Meanwhile, Congress has put forward numerous legislative proposals to amend 230. These efforts are confused at best. Many Republicans believe that the platforms at stake display an anti-conservative bias, disproportionately censoring and fact-checking conservative speakers. Many Democrats are concerned about censorship of communities of color, LGBTQ voices, and women and nonbinary people. Others are concerned that platforms promote disinformation, conspiracy theories, misinformation about voting, violence, and hate speech.

To sum up critics’ views: platforms are censoring people too much and not enough all at once. Somehow, policy makers think that the solution to these alleged problems is to expand the circumstances under which platforms can be liable for their users’ speech by amending Section 230. 

To be clear, amending this provision will not solve any of these concerns. In fact, many of the proposed changes would exacerbate over-censorship, and other proposals would promote the proliferation of misinformation about voting. Yet President Trump and Congress continue to advocate for changes to the law in an effort to encourage the censorship they like and discourage the censorship they don’t. 

Section 230, in addition to providing a shield against liability for users’ speech, enables online platforms to cultivate orderly, pleasant, and useful sites. While the biggest social media companies, responsible for hosting the speech of billions, should resist calls to censor lawful speech, Section 230 allows sites to delete abusive accounts, remove content that violates the site’s terms of service, or eliminate voter misinformation without risking liability for the speech that they do host.

Almost as important as what Section 230 protects is what it does not. Section 230 does not shield bad actors. If you harass or defame someone online, you are responsible for your illegal conduct. 

Moreover, platforms are liable for their own illegal conduct. They can be sued or prosecuted for the content they create and the conduct they engage in, or materially contribute to, that violates any law. That is why Illinois residents were able to sue Facebook under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act when the platform used facial recognition technology on them without their consent. And that’s why we were able to file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to challenge Facebook’s targeting of employment ads to younger men only, excluding all women, non-binary people, and older men. 

Section 230 has permitted platforms to host all kinds of user content, and created space for social movements like #MeToo and content creators on sites like Instagram, TikTok and Twitch to flourish. It has also enabled platforms to host the speech of activists and those organizing protests, from the Arab Spring to today’s protests against police brutality. If it weren’t for Section 230, website owners would be far more reluctant to freely permit public posts knowing that the site could be investigated, shut down, sued, or charged with a felony over one user’s illegal tweet or post — including that of the President. And if that protection is unavailable only for a certain category of content, as some proposed reinterpretations of the law propose, the platforms will censor far more speech related to that category than they could constitutionally be liable for, simply to spare themselves the massive court costs they could face.

This is exactly what has happened in the past. Congress last amended Section 230 in 2018, through a law called SESTA/FOSTA. It was purportedly aimed only at creating platform liability for illegal sex trafficking. We warned at the time that rather than face liability, platforms would engage in excessive censorship that would harm the LGTBTQ and sex worker communities in particular. As predicted, after SESTA/FOSTA’s passage, entire websites that provided forums for sex workers to connect, share information to protect themselves, and build community disappeared. Speech suffered, and so did the health and safety of vulnerable communities. If the EARN IT Act, which is currently moving through the Senate, becomes law, it will create similar harm.

Amending 230 to narrow the scope of the editorial decisions platforms can make while still receiving 230’s immunity shield can also be dangerous. For example, the Online Content Policy Modernization Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to mark up this week, would create new liability risks for platforms that “editorialize” or make virtually any other changes to user-generated content. That means sites that label and flag misleading or incorrect user speech, or point users to trusted and fact-checked sources to counter falsehoods, could be exposed to greater liability risk. Such a change could discourage sites like Twitter from providing links to factual information about mail-in ballots under tweets that blatantly lie about voting by mail, not unlike the incident that sparked President Trump’s executive order.

The desire on the part of policy makers to do more to create platform accountability is understandable. The ACLU shares that goal, and has long advocated for strong consumer privacy protections at the federal and state level for that very reason. We have also pressed the platforms to provide transparency and meaningful review processes for their content moderation practices. However, we should be wary of proposals that risk harming online expression and be skeptical of focusing on Section 230 as a method of requiring platform accountability. 

Section 230 protects people’s ability to create, communicate, and build community online. The ACLU will remain vigilant in ensuring that the internet continues to be a place for self-expression and creation for all. We urge members of Congress to do the same, particularly as they examine proposals to amend Section 230. 

Published October 27, 2020 at 08:16PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3mk6bxw

ACLU: Don’t Let the Supreme Court Open the Door to More Discrimination Against LGBTQ People

Don’t Let the Supreme Court Open the Door to More Discrimination Against LGBTQ People

The Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case about whether governments can be forced to give taxpayer funding to faith-based organizations that provide government services in ways that discriminate against LGBTQ people.
If that sentence took you a minute to unravel, and then you couldn’t quite believe you read it right — well, you’re not alone. But unfortunately, it’s true.

The Fulton case, which will be heard on Nov. 4, involves the foster care system. Catholic Social Services had a contract from Philadelphia to provide services to foster youth, including screening foster parents. When the city learned CSS insisted on following its own religious screening criteria — which rejected same-sex couples as foster parents — the city didn’t renew its contract. CSS then sued the city.

In a similar case, a Protestant organization contracted to provide these services declined to place foster youth with foster parents who were not Protestants, and specifically discriminated against Jewish and Catholic families. Child welfare experts agree that these types of policies lead to more foster youth spending more time in group homes, because the agencies are turning away eligible foster parents.

But the implications of the case go far beyond the foster care system. Local, state, and federal governments often give taxpayer dollars to private agencies to provide government services. Many of these private agencies are faith-based. For example, the U.S. State Department contracts with nine organizations to provide resettlement services to refugees, including housing. Six of the nine are faith-based, and five of those six are Christian. Faith-based organizations have government contracts to provide everything from public assistance to substance use treatment, from childcare to shelters. Many of these faith-based organizations do not discriminate and follow best practices in their field to put the needs of those receiving their services first. And that’s how it should be.

In the past, the Supreme Court has said that governments can’t deny an organization funding just because the organization is religious. But our opponents in Fulton want something much more than the ability to compete for government funding on equal footing with secular organizations. They want a right for religious organizations to receive government funding to provide government services, even if they selectively refuse to provide those services and discriminate in violation of contract terms and the law. This isn’t religious liberty. It’s government-funded discrimination against the most vulnerable in our society, excused because some want to impose their religious beliefs on others.
If the Supreme Court agrees with Catholic Social Services, it is the people who are most marginalized who will suffer.

Middle class and wealthy people for the most part get to choose whether and how to engage with faith-based organizations. Working class and poor people do not. The possibilities for harm are sweeping, and there would be no clear stopping point. If you stop by your local church on your way home from work to apply for food stamps, they might stop processing your application as soon as they learn you are pregnant and unmarried. If you are a transgender woman with no housing and no place to stay, you could be turned away from a federally-funded homeless shelter run by a faith-based organization. You could end up sleeping on the street in the freezing cold because of who you are.

If you were told you had to complete a drug treatment program funded by the state government to avoid jail time, that program could insist that you embrace Christianity to complete it. You might not be allowed to bring your kids to a taxpayer-funded daycare center because you have a partner who is the same sex as you or a different religion than you. If you are a high school student interested in an after-school program paid for by your local government, you could be rejected because you are Mormon or bisexual.
These same communities are under attack in many other ways. For example, the Trump administration recently proposed a regulation designed to allow federally-funded homeless shelters to turn people away because they are transgender, or because they don’t match sex stereotypes. If this proposal were to become law, it would embolden life-threatening discrimination against some of the most vulnerable people in the nation, and lead to more early deaths of trans people.

The wrong decision in Fulton could do the same. And because a ruling in Fulton would be based on the constitution, Congress would not be able to fix it. But that’s not a reason to give up — it’s a reason to fight harder for our communities in every way we can, both before the court’s decision and after. We must insist that the court not bend the constitution to force the government to withhold services from some of the most vulnerable in our communities. We must fight for the economic security of LGBTQ people, whether that is through passing the Equality Act, decriminalizing sex work, or providing emergency COVID-19 rent relief. And we must fight for genuine religious liberty for all.

Published October 26, 2020 at 10:41PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2HAIimC

ACLU: Don’t Let the Supreme Court Open the Door to More Discrimination Against LGBTQ People

Don’t Let the Supreme Court Open the Door to More Discrimination Against LGBTQ People

The Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case about whether governments can be forced to give taxpayer funding to faith-based organizations that provide government services in ways that discriminate against LGBTQ people.
If that sentence took you a minute to unravel, and then you couldn’t quite believe you read it right — well, you’re not alone. But unfortunately, it’s true.

The Fulton case, which will be heard on Nov. 4, involves the foster care system. Catholic Social Services had a contract from Philadelphia to provide services to foster youth, including screening foster parents. When the city learned CSS insisted on following its own religious screening criteria — which rejected same-sex couples as foster parents — the city didn’t renew its contract. CSS then sued the city.

In a similar case, a Protestant organization contracted to provide these services declined to place foster youth with foster parents who were not Protestants, and specifically discriminated against Jewish and Catholic families. Child welfare experts agree that these types of policies lead to more foster youth spending more time in group homes, because the agencies are turning away eligible foster parents.

But the implications of the case go far beyond the foster care system. Local, state, and federal governments often give taxpayer dollars to private agencies to provide government services. Many of these private agencies are faith-based. For example, the U.S. State Department contracts with nine organizations to provide resettlement services to refugees, including housing. Six of the nine are faith-based, and five of those six are Christian. Faith-based organizations have government contracts to provide everything from public assistance to substance use treatment, from childcare to shelters. Many of these faith-based organizations do not discriminate and follow best practices in their field to put the needs of those receiving their services first. And that’s how it should be.

In the past, the Supreme Court has said that governments can’t deny an organization funding just because the organization is religious. But our opponents in Fulton want something much more than the ability to compete for government funding on equal footing with secular organizations. They want a right for religious organizations to receive government funding to provide government services, even if they selectively refuse to provide those services and discriminate in violation of contract terms and the law. This isn’t religious liberty. It’s government-funded discrimination against the most vulnerable in our society, excused because some want to impose their religious beliefs on others.
If the Supreme Court agrees with Catholic Social Services, it is the people who are most marginalized who will suffer.

Middle class and wealthy people for the most part get to choose whether and how to engage with faith-based organizations. Working class and poor people do not. The possibilities for harm are sweeping, and there would be no clear stopping point. If you stop by your local church on your way home from work to apply for food stamps, they might stop processing your application as soon as they learn you are pregnant and unmarried. If you are a transgender woman with no housing and no place to stay, you could be turned away from a federally-funded homeless shelter run by a faith-based organization. You could end up sleeping on the street in the freezing cold because of who you are.

If you were told you had to complete a drug treatment program funded by the state government to avoid jail time, that program could insist that you embrace Christianity to complete it. You might not be allowed to bring your kids to a taxpayer-funded daycare center because you have a partner who is the same sex as you or a different religion than you. If you are a high school student interested in an after-school program paid for by your local government, you could be rejected because you are Mormon or bisexual.
These same communities are under attack in many other ways. For example, the Trump administration recently proposed a regulation designed to allow federally-funded homeless shelters to turn people away because they are transgender, or because they don’t match sex stereotypes. If this proposal were to become law, it would embolden life-threatening discrimination against some of the most vulnerable people in the nation, and lead to more early deaths of trans people.

The wrong decision in Fulton could do the same. And because a ruling in Fulton would be based on the constitution, Congress would not be able to fix it. But that’s not a reason to give up — it’s a reason to fight harder for our communities in every way we can, both before the court’s decision and after. We must insist that the court not bend the constitution to force the government to withhold services from some of the most vulnerable in our communities. We must fight for the economic security of LGBTQ people, whether that is through passing the Equality Act, decriminalizing sex work, or providing emergency COVID-19 rent relief. And we must fight for genuine religious liberty for all.

Published October 26, 2020 at 05:11PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2HAIimC

Sudan : Staff-Monitored Program-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Sudan

Sudan : Staff-Monitored Program-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Sudan
Published October 23, 2020 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Attacks on Trans Athletes are Also an Attack on Intersex People

Attacks on Trans Athletes are Also an Attack on Intersex People

Intersex people make up as much as 1.7 percent of the population and are born with bodies that differ from what others might think of as “typically” male or female. Although being intersex isn’t that rare, this population is widely misunderstood and underrepresented, much like the trans community. Racist colonial erasure, late-stage capitalism, and the medical industrial complex have combined to create implicit assumptions (and often explicit recommendations) with which trans and intersex groups are all-too familiar. We are told, usually by cis and non-intersex people, there’s only one right way to have a body — and that that body should be as normatively close to binary and cis as possible.

At interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth, we are working hard with our partners at Patterson Belknap LLP to prepare our friend-of-the-court brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This follows the district court blocking an Idaho law that targeted trans student athletes and sought to exclude trans and intersex women and girls from school sports. We’re hopeful the judges of the Ninth Circuit recognize why it is so important to stop this law from going into effect.

As we prepare our brief, we also approach Intersex Awareness Day on October 26. It is particularly important on this day to recognize why intersex people continue to show up in support of the trans community and in opposition to the unrelenting efforts to deny trans people their rights. Intersex groups and the advocates who work on their behalf joined the effort to oppose HB 500 — Idaho’s law attacking transgender student athletes — not only because many intersex people are also trans (and vice versa), and not only becase the proposed approach to sex testing in sports violates the rights of the intersex community as well.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/XeL5R5N_3L8

Intersex people are fighting this fight too because the community viscerally understands what’s at stake. As the complaint filed by ACLU clients Lindsay Hecox and Jane Doe explains, “Often, children discovered to be intersex in infancy are subjected to nonconsensual, harmful, and irreversible ‘normalizing’ surgical interventions, including reducing the size of the clitoris, creating a vaginal opening, and removing hormone-producing gonads in an attempt to erase their intersex differences based on notions of what is ‘normal’ for boys’ or girls’ bodies.” This is precisely the type of abuse (and it is abuse: this is deemed a form of torture by the United Nations) that flows from anti-trans bills like HB 500. There are intersex students in every school district in Idaho who in infancy survived the trauma of these surgeries, only to still be considered not “female” enough to participate on women and girls’ teams.

The plaintiffs in this case are women who were fortunate enough to have medical decision-making power over their own bodies, at least in the realm of trans-related care, and who rightfully deserve to engage in college sports without anyone scrutinizing their sex characteristics. No one should be told by a surgeon or a coach or anyone else that their clitoris is too big to be female, or that their chromosomes are more real than their gender, or that their hormones are too “masculine” to allow them to compete as who they are. Trans and intersex communities have allied together because we know these are false boundaries invented to exclude already oppressed communities, usually along racist and ableist lines. Our bodies may transcend common conceptions of sex and gender, yet we exist within these systems (like sports, medicine, and institutional settings) every day and most often leave them better than when we found them.

Simplistic, bigoted approaches to trans and intersex people in these settings succeed because of intellectual and moral laziness. The refusal by the cis community to creatively imagine solutions isn’t surprising because they operate everyday within systems that prioritize cis-ness. But what’s especially egregious is when attempts are made to change the  rules of the system with the specific intent of further harming groups that are already targeted in virtually all other areas, as in the case of HB 500. 

The appropriate response when trans and intersex athletes try to work within an already flawed system is gracious celebration, rather than exclusion and derision. It’s telling that the resources in support of HB 500 are funneled toward litigation to appeal to the far right rather than actually building up women’s sports. These attacks are never about meaningfully protecting women. 

The challenges faced by the plaintiffs in this case and those they represent are considerable already. As we celebrate Intersex Awareness Day on the 26th, let’s remember that a lack of awareness about trans and intersex lived realities — and the fact that many of us are actually joyful about our trans and intersex bodies — has allowed a cloud of shame and stigma to conceal what no lawsuit can change. Trans and intersex people are a part of the vast and diverse beauty of human existence. We will continue to improve upon tired understandings of sex and gender for as long as these systems exist. 

Alesdair H. Ittelson is the Legal Director at interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth, the nation’s largest and oldest organization working to protect the rights of people born with variations in sex characteristics. 

Published October 23, 2020 at 10:12PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/35qR9PI

ACLU: Attacks on Trans Athletes are Also an Attack on Intersex People

Attacks on Trans Athletes are Also an Attack on Intersex People

Intersex people make up as much as 1.7 percent of the population and are born with bodies that differ from what others might think of as “typically” male or female. Although being intersex isn’t that rare, this population is widely misunderstood and underrepresented, much like the trans community. Racist colonial erasure, late-stage capitalism, and the medical industrial complex have combined to create implicit assumptions (and often explicit recommendations) with which trans and intersex groups are all-too familiar. We are told, usually by cis and non-intersex people, there’s only one right way to have a body — and that that body should be as normatively close to binary and cis as possible.

At interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth, we are working hard with our partners at Patterson Belknap LLP to prepare our friend-of-the-court brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This follows the district court blocking an Idaho law that targeted trans student athletes and sought to exclude trans and intersex women and girls from school sports. We’re hopeful the judges of the Ninth Circuit recognize why it is so important to stop this law from going into effect.

As we prepare our brief, we also approach Intersex Awareness Day on October 26. It is particularly important on this day to recognize why intersex people continue to show up in support of the trans community and in opposition to the unrelenting efforts to deny trans people their rights. Intersex groups and the advocates who work on their behalf joined the effort to oppose HB 500 — Idaho’s law attacking transgender student athletes — not only because many intersex people are also trans (and vice versa), and not only becase the proposed approach to sex testing in sports violates the rights of the intersex community as well.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/XeL5R5N_3L8

Intersex people are fighting this fight too because the community viscerally understands what’s at stake. As the complaint filed by ACLU clients Lindsay Hecox and Jane Doe explains, “Often, children discovered to be intersex in infancy are subjected to nonconsensual, harmful, and irreversible ‘normalizing’ surgical interventions, including reducing the size of the clitoris, creating a vaginal opening, and removing hormone-producing gonads in an attempt to erase their intersex differences based on notions of what is ‘normal’ for boys’ or girls’ bodies.” This is precisely the type of abuse (and it is abuse: this is deemed a form of torture by the United Nations) that flows from anti-trans bills like HB 500. There are intersex students in every school district in Idaho who in infancy survived the trauma of these surgeries, only to still be considered not “female” enough to participate on women and girls’ teams.

The plaintiffs in this case are women who were fortunate enough to have medical decision-making power over their own bodies, at least in the realm of trans-related care, and who rightfully deserve to engage in college sports without anyone scrutinizing their sex characteristics. No one should be told by a surgeon or a coach or anyone else that their clitoris is too big to be female, or that their chromosomes are more real than their gender, or that their hormones are too “masculine” to allow them to compete as who they are. Trans and intersex communities have allied together because we know these are false boundaries invented to exclude already oppressed communities, usually along racist and ableist lines. Our bodies may transcend common conceptions of sex and gender, yet we exist within these systems (like sports, medicine, and institutional settings) every day and most often leave them better than when we found them.

Simplistic, bigoted approaches to trans and intersex people in these settings succeed because of intellectual and moral laziness. The refusal by the cis community to creatively imagine solutions isn’t surprising because they operate everyday within systems that prioritize cis-ness. But what’s especially egregious is when attempts are made to change the  rules of the system with the specific intent of further harming groups that are already targeted in virtually all other areas, as in the case of HB 500. 

The appropriate response when trans and intersex athletes try to work within an already flawed system is gracious celebration, rather than exclusion and derision. It’s telling that the resources in support of HB 500 are funneled toward litigation to appeal to the far right rather than actually building up women’s sports. These attacks are never about meaningfully protecting women. 

The challenges faced by the plaintiffs in this case and those they represent are considerable already. As we celebrate Intersex Awareness Day on the 26th, let’s remember that a lack of awareness about trans and intersex lived realities — and the fact that many of us are actually joyful about our trans and intersex bodies — has allowed a cloud of shame and stigma to conceal what no lawsuit can change. Trans and intersex people are a part of the vast and diverse beauty of human existence. We will continue to improve upon tired understandings of sex and gender for as long as these systems exist. 

Alesdair H. Ittelson is the Legal Director at interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth, the nation’s largest and oldest organization working to protect the rights of people born with variations in sex characteristics. 

Published October 23, 2020 at 05:42PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/35qR9PI

ACLU: The Supreme Court Case That Could Jeopardize LGBTQ Rights

The Supreme Court Case That Could Jeopardize LGBTQ Rights

In March 2018, the city of Philadelphia learned that two of the agencies it contracted with to provide foster care services would not, based on religious objection, accept same-sex couples as foster parents. The city told the agencies their contracts with the city were in jeopardy unless they complied with basic nondiscrimination requirements.

While one of the agencies agreed to comply, the other — Catholic Social Services (CSS) — refused. Instead, CSS sued the city, claiming the Constitution gives it the right to opt out of the nondiscrimination requirement. After a lower court and a federal circuit court ruled in the city’s favor, CSS appealed to the Supreme Court. The case, Fulton v City of Philadelphia, has implications not only for the future of foster care, but for the protection of all people from discrimination in the alleged name of religion. Arguments are set for November 4th. 

Louise Melling, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU, joined the podcast this week to discuss what’s at stake in Fulton.

“The ACLU has no question about the right of people and organizations to have their beliefs and to practice their beliefs, but it’s to practice your beliefs as long as they don’t hurt others,” said Melling. “And in this context, if Catholic Social Services can practice its beliefs in terms of turning away families because they’re same-sex, it is hurting others.”

https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/915607339

Published October 23, 2020 at 09:15PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/35rnrdl

ACLU: The Supreme Court Case That Could Jeopardize LGBTQ Rights

The Supreme Court Case That Could Jeopardize LGBTQ Rights

In March 2018, the city of Philadelphia learned that two of the agencies it contracted with to provide foster care services would not, based on religious objection, accept same-sex couples as foster parents. The city told the agencies their contracts with the city were in jeopardy unless they complied with basic nondiscrimination requirements.

While one of the agencies agreed to comply, the other — Catholic Social Services (CSS) — refused. Instead, CSS sued the city, claiming the Constitution gives it the right to opt out of the nondiscrimination requirement. After a lower court and a federal circuit court ruled in the city’s favor, CSS appealed to the Supreme Court. The case, Fulton v City of Philadelphia, has implications not only for the future of foster care, but for the protection of all people from discrimination in the alleged name of religion. Arguments are set for November 4th. 

Louise Melling, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU, joined the podcast this week to discuss what’s at stake in Fulton.

“The ACLU has no question about the right of people and organizations to have their beliefs and to practice their beliefs, but it’s to practice your beliefs as long as they don’t hurt others,” said Melling. “And in this context, if Catholic Social Services can practice its beliefs in terms of turning away families because they’re same-sex, it is hurting others.”

https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/915607339

Published October 23, 2020 at 04:45PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/35rnrdl

ACLU: At the Polls, Episode 6: Your Voting Questions, Answered

At the Polls, Episode 6: Your Voting Questions, Answered

When we launched the podcast miniseries, At the Polls, we asked listeners to send us their questions about voting this year. While over 44 million people have already cast their ballots, some questions remain about our rights and options as voters. Listen to the full podcast for your most frequent voter questions, answered.  

https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/913781386

Should I deliver my ballot by hand or by mail? 

All voters should make a voting plan that works best for them, whether that means mailing their ballot, putting it in a drop box, or delivering it by hand. First, voters should make sure they know the deadlines in their state. Some states require all ballots to be back in the hands of election officials on Election Day. In others, your ballot must be postmarked by a certain date. Rules vary across states, so look up deadlines in your state as you decide how to cast your ballot — and return it early. 

How do I make sure my mail-in ballot is counted? 

In 45 states, voters can track their ballots online to see if it has been received. In other states — Texas, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Mississippi — some local election officials track ballots. To see if your state offers ballot tracking, check out aclu.org/voter under “voting tips.”

If I use a voting machine, how can I confirm that my vote has not been altered?

There have never been any occurrences of widespread fraud in American elections. Elections are administered at the county and municipal level throughout the country, and polling places are staffed by professional election administrators whose job is to make sure your ballot is counted and your voice is heard. Further, most jurisdictions in the U.S. use paper ballots, ballot marking devices, or machines that provide a voter with a verified paper trail that they can use to make sure their vote was recorded properly.

I’ve requested an absentee ballot. Can I change my mind and vote in person?

The answer depends on where you live. In some states, including California, Michigan, and Florida, you must bring your absentee ballot with you when you vote in person. If you haven’t received your mail-in ballot, you will have to cast a provisional ballot at the polls. 

Besides presidential candidates, what else can I expect on my ballot?

There are important and impactful races up and down the ballot this year, from the U.S. House of Representatives to the U.S. Senate and state and local elections. While advocates can’t go around knocking on doors this year due to COVID-19, we can all get involved online. Local ballot measures can impact civil rights and civil liberties nationwide. 

Oklahoma’s State Question 805 is an example. Oklahoma one of the biggest incarcerators in the country — and in the world — in part because of unjust policies that can land you in prison for decades or even life for low-level offenses like drug possession and shoplifting. There are similar policies across the country, so what happens in Oklahoma this year could help to start the conversation in other states. 

Nebraska’s Initiative 428 is another example of a critical economic justice policy that could have nationwide implications. Measure 428 would put a cap on interest rates from predatory payday lenders at 36 percent. Currently, interest rates can be as high as 400 percent — often trapping individuals into a vicious cycle of debt. Payday lending is a predatory practice that has historically targeted communities of color across the country, so all voters should pay attention to Nebraska’s outcome on Initiative 428.

If members of my family can’t speak English, can they vote? 

English is not a requirement to cast your ballot. Many jurisdictions provide resources to accommodate multilingual voting and to ensure that everybody can exercise their right to vote regardless of which language they speak. 

If you have run into issues when voting, call the non-partisan Election Protection Hotline. 

• English: 1-866-OUR-VOTE / 1-866-687-8683
• Spanish: 1-888-VE-Y-VOTA / 1-888-839-8682
• Arabic: 1-844-YALLA-US / 1-844-925-5287
• For Bengali, Cantonese, Hindi, Urdu, Korean, Mandarin, Tagalog, or Vietnamese: 1-888-274-8683

What should I do if I encounter intimidation at the polls? 

Voter intimidation can take many forms, but voters should not expect to encounter it when they go to the polls. The ACLU and the broader voting rights community remain vigilant and are working to make sure that no voters face intimidation while exercising their right to vote. 
No one has the right to take your vote from you. But if you do experience intimidation, there are ways to get help. Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE to report occurrences of voter intimidation.

At the end of the day, what everybody should know is that they can get help. The ACLU and other voting rights advocates are ready to jump into action should problems arise. Your job is to vote. 

For information on voting in your state, see the Let People Vote guide. If you want to volunteer from home, visit peoplepower.org to learn how. 

https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/913781386

Published October 22, 2020 at 11:26PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2TlkxB2