Nearly three weeks ago, former President Donald Trump was banned from nearly every social media platform because of his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Just before Congress was set to certify Joe Biden as the next president of the United States, Trump instructed his supporters to, “fight much harder” against “bad people” and “show strength” at the Capitol.
The social media bans on Trump and his supporters ignited a debate about whether these social media companies have too much power over the speech of their users. Should they have banned Trump sooner? Are these bans legal? What kind of precedent does banning Trump and others from these platforms set for the speech of marginalized communities? And should the government rein in the private sector power of these companies?
To answer some of these tough questions, we’re joined on At Liberty by Kate Ruane, senior legislative counsel for First Amendment issues at the ACLU.
Nearly three weeks ago, former President Donald Trump was banned from nearly every social media platform because of his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Just before Congress was set to certify Joe Biden as the next president of the United States, Trump instructed his supporters to, “fight much harder” against “bad people” and “show strength” at the Capitol.
The social media bans on Trump and his supporters ignited a debate about whether these social media companies have too much power over the speech of their users. Should they have banned Trump sooner? Are these bans legal? What kind of precedent does banning Trump and others from these platforms set for the speech of marginalized communities? And should the government rein in the private sector power of these companies?
To answer some of these tough questions, we’re joined on At Liberty by Kate Ruane, senior legislative counsel for First Amendment issues at the ACLU.
Myanmar : Requests for Disbursement Under the Rapid Credit Facility and Purchase Under the Rapid Financing Instrument-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Myanmar
Published January 28, 2021 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
The Gambia : First Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement, Financing Assurances Review, and Request for Augmentation of Access and a Waiver of Nonobservance of a Performance Criterion-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for The Gambia
Published January 28, 2021 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
Yesterday, I joined the ACLU in filing a lawsuit to restore abortion access to Guam. More than two years ago, the last known abortion provider in Guam retired, and thanks to outdated and medically unnecessary restrictions, island residents cannot use telemedicine — which over a decade of evidence and experience has shown to be a safe and effective means of providing medication abortion — to access legal abortion. In effect, these laws are operating as an abortion ban.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time advocates, like myself, have had to turn to the courts to defend access to safe and legal abortion in Guam. In 1990, Guam took the national stage when its governor, Joseph Ada, signed into law a bill banning abortions on Guam. The law was a frontal assault on our constitutional rights — in fact, the government of Guam argued that the right to abortion did not even apply to Guam at all — and was the most restrictive ban enacted in the United States since the Supreme Court had decided Roe v. Wade. The law was challenged, the government of Guam lost, and the suit cost the people of Guam millions. Guam legislators stayed away from the issue for a while but — just as we have seen throughout the United States — over the last decade they have steadily introduced laws to make abortion more and more difficult to access.
Since 2008, politicians in Guam have introduced nearly a dozen medically unnecessary and politically motivated restrictions on safe and legal abortion care. The majority of these legislative efforts were signed into law, creating a web of barriers that have pushed safe and affordable abortion care out of reach for island residents. Among other harmful and stigmatizing effects, these laws delayed access to care and forced patients to make multiple, unnecessary visits to their doctor.
These barriers are exacerbated by a unique problem that sets Guam apart from other U.S. citizens. Guam sits about 5,800 miles (12 flight hours) from the U.S. mainland, and 3,800 miles (7 flight hours) southwest of our closest U.S. neighbor, Hawai’i. Guam has also been a federally designated a Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) and a Medically Underserved Area (MUA) — meaning that specialized and tertiary medical services are thousands of miles away.
These barriers hurt those who are already hurting most. The most vulnerable make up a larger part of our community than anyone would like to admit. Our rates of poverty, poor health, and domestic violence and sexual assault already are among the highest in the United States. And the current lack of access to abortion only exacerbates this crisis: Research shows that women who are forced to carry a pregnancy to term after being denied a wanted abortion are four times more likely to experience subsequent poverty; are more likely to experience serious complications from the end of pregnancy; and are more likely to remain in abusive relationships.
People who are already struggling should not be denied the ability to get an abortion, continue a pregnancy, or have a safe place to raise their children — yet that is exactly what is happening in Guam. No politician should deny us our freedom to make decisions about our own health, our bodies, and our families — especially not one who claims to serve the people of Guam. It is impossible to separate our choice of whether and when to have children from every other choice in our lives. From housing to schools to jobs, virtually every major decision that influences our lives is irrevocably impacted by our decision to have a child. Any denial of the right to choose whether to have a child is a denial of all of our other choices.
It is painful to see my island’s distinction among the U.S. is yet again based on the denial of a fundamental right to our women. However, as a Chamorro woman, carrying the legacy of Chamorro activism for reproductive freedom, I know we do not take for granted our inherent right to determine our own destiny — it is something we are still fighting for collectively. As a mother, I have to believe that we will trust and respect that our women should not be individually restrained from determining what is right for our futures. Despite centuries of colonization, our pre-colonial matriarchal traditions and culture of respect endure. I hope we continue this legacy by respecting that people in Guam are capable enough to make their reproductive health choices themselves, free from unnecessary interference from the government. If we don’t, it will cost us much more than money this time.
Published January 28, 2021 at 10:00PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3cjfH1Y
Yesterday, I joined the ACLU in filing a lawsuit to restore abortion access to Guam. More than two years ago, the last known abortion provider in Guam retired, and thanks to outdated and medically unnecessary restrictions, island residents cannot use telemedicine — which over a decade of evidence and experience has shown to be a safe and effective means of providing medication abortion — to access legal abortion. In effect, these laws are operating as an abortion ban.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time advocates, like myself, have had to turn to the courts to defend access to safe and legal abortion in Guam. In 1990, Guam took the national stage when its governor, Joseph Ada, signed into law a bill banning abortions on Guam. The law was a frontal assault on our constitutional rights — in fact, the government of Guam argued that the right to abortion did not even apply to Guam at all — and was the most restrictive ban enacted in the United States since the Supreme Court had decided Roe v. Wade. The law was challenged, the government of Guam lost, and the suit cost the people of Guam millions. Guam legislators stayed away from the issue for a while but — just as we have seen throughout the United States — over the last decade they have steadily introduced laws to make abortion more and more difficult to access.
Since 2008, politicians in Guam have introduced nearly a dozen medically unnecessary and politically motivated restrictions on safe and legal abortion care. The majority of these legislative efforts were signed into law, creating a web of barriers that have pushed safe and affordable abortion care out of reach for island residents. Among other harmful and stigmatizing effects, these laws delayed access to care and forced patients to make multiple, unnecessary visits to their doctor.
These barriers are exacerbated by a unique problem that sets Guam apart from other U.S. citizens. Guam sits about 5,800 miles (12 flight hours) from the U.S. mainland, and 3,800 miles (7 flight hours) southwest of our closest U.S. neighbor, Hawai’i. Guam has also been a federally designated a Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) and a Medically Underserved Area (MUA) — meaning that specialized and tertiary medical services are thousands of miles away.
These barriers hurt those who are already hurting most. The most vulnerable make up a larger part of our community than anyone would like to admit. Our rates of poverty, poor health, and domestic violence and sexual assault already are among the highest in the United States. And the current lack of access to abortion only exacerbates this crisis: Research shows that women who are forced to carry a pregnancy to term after being denied a wanted abortion are four times more likely to experience subsequent poverty; are more likely to experience serious complications from the end of pregnancy; and are more likely to remain in abusive relationships.
People who are already struggling should not be denied the ability to get an abortion, continue a pregnancy, or have a safe place to raise their children — yet that is exactly what is happening in Guam. No politician should deny us our freedom to make decisions about our own health, our bodies, and our families — especially not one who claims to serve the people of Guam. It is impossible to separate our choice of whether and when to have children from every other choice in our lives. From housing to schools to jobs, virtually every major decision that influences our lives is irrevocably impacted by our decision to have a child. Any denial of the right to choose whether to have a child is a denial of all of our other choices.
It is painful to see my island’s distinction among the U.S. is yet again based on the denial of a fundamental right to our women. However, as a Chamorro woman, carrying the legacy of Chamorro activism for reproductive freedom, I know we do not take for granted our inherent right to determine our own destiny — it is something we are still fighting for collectively. As a mother, I have to believe that we will trust and respect that our women should not be individually restrained from determining what is right for our futures. Despite centuries of colonization, our pre-colonial matriarchal traditions and culture of respect endure. I hope we continue this legacy by respecting that people in Guam are capable enough to make their reproductive health choices themselves, free from unnecessary interference from the government. If we don’t, it will cost us much more than money this time.
Published January 29, 2021 at 03:30AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3cjfH1Y
We’re Suing to Restore Abortion Access to People in Guam
Last week, we marked Roe Day, the 48th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion throughout the United States. We celebrate this milestone while at the same time recognizing that legality alone has never been enough to secure real access to abortion. Indeed, we don’t need to wait for the Supreme Court to act to see a post-Roe world here in the United States. Guamanians are already living it.
Yesterday, we filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Guam, seeking to restore abortion access to the island. The lawsuit challenges two outdated and medically unnecessary laws that are preventing physicians from using telemedicine to provide medication abortion to their patients in Guam. In effect, these laws are operating as an abortion ban.
Medication abortion is an FDA-approved option for ending an early pregnancy and treating early miscarriage, which has been safely and effectively used in the United States for more than 20 years. More than a decade of research and experience show that the medications used for a medication abortion can safely and effectively be prescribed through telemedicine. Providing medication abortion by telemedicine can not only reduce barriers to abortion care — such as travel, child care, long wait times, and the costs that result from these obstacles — but, for many patients, it also allows them to receive care where they feel safest and have the most privacy, such as their own home. But the right to such care is being denied to people in Guam.
What’s happening in Guam is disturbingly familiar. The ACLU first joined forces with advocates in Guam, led by Chamorro women (the Indigenous people of Guam), to protect abortion access more than 30 years ago. At the time, it was estimated that the majority of OB-GYNs on the island provided abortion services. However, just as we have seen throughout the United States, decades of stigmatizing political rhetoric, harassment, and increasingly restrictive laws have steadily pushed abortion out of reach in Guam.
But there are real and significant ways the fight to protect abortion access in Guam differs from that fight stateside. Guam, the largest and southernmost of the Mariana Islands chain, is located nearly 4,000 miles from Hawai‘i and about 1,500 miles from the Philippines. The last 400 years of Guam’s history have been marked by colonization by Spain, Japan, and the United States. Guam’s current political status is as an unincorporated, organized territory of the United States. Guamanians are U.S. citizens and have the same constitutional right to abortion as anyone else in the United States, but cannot vote in U.S. presidential elections. As with all abortion restrictions, these laws disproportionately harm people of color and people with low incomes: In Guam, it is Chamorro women, the Indigenous people of Guam, who not only carry the unjust weight of centuries of colonialism and imperialism, but also the disproportionate burdens of laws that strip them of the ability to make the best decision for themselves and their families about their pregnancies.
Without meaningful access to abortion on the island, people in Guam are being forced to travel several thousand miles each way to Hawai‘i, for which airfare alone costs more than a thousand dollars, just to get the care they need. That is unconscionable, not to mention unconstitutional — no court has ever upheld a law that imposes such a burden on people seeking abortion care. And during the COVID-19 pandemic, this forced travel carries extra risk and burden. Travel restrictions and quarantines in both Hawai‘i and Guam make it even more difficult to access care. Every day of quarantine escalates the cost of travel, requires more time off work and away from family and children, and makes it all the more difficult to keep one’s abortion decision private. The lack of abortion access also creates unique burdens for U.S. servicemembers stationed on the island — particularly for enlisted women, who live on extremely restricted incomes and are disproportionately people of color — who are already subjected to federal laws designed to push abortion out of reach.
The fight for access to abortion is not just about legality, but also about dignity and humanity. People who live in Guam have the same right not only to constitutionally protected health care, but to that dignity, as anyone else in the United States. We are proud to stand with Chamorro women and people in Guam, and to continue to work alongside them for a world where everyone is able to receive the abortion care they need and create their families without barriers, fear, stigma, or political interference.
Published January 28, 2021 at 11:10PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/39rAkHr
We’re Suing to Restore Abortion Access to People in Guam
Last week, we marked Roe Day, the 48th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion throughout the United States. We celebrate this milestone while at the same time recognizing that legality alone has never been enough to secure real access to abortion. Indeed, we don’t need to wait for the Supreme Court to act to see a post-Roe world here in the United States. Guamanians are already living it.
Yesterday, we filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Guam, seeking to restore abortion access to the island. The lawsuit challenges two outdated and medically unnecessary laws that are preventing physicians from using telemedicine to provide medication abortion to their patients in Guam. In effect, these laws are operating as an abortion ban.
Medication abortion is an FDA-approved option for ending an early pregnancy and treating early miscarriage, which has been safely and effectively used in the United States for more than 20 years. More than a decade of research and experience show that the medications used for a medication abortion can safely and effectively be prescribed through telemedicine. Providing medication abortion by telemedicine can not only reduce barriers to abortion care — such as travel, child care, long wait times, and the costs that result from these obstacles — but, for many patients, it also allows them to receive care where they feel safest and have the most privacy, such as their own home. But the right to such care is being denied to people in Guam.
What’s happening in Guam is disturbingly familiar. The ACLU first joined forces with advocates in Guam, led by Chamorro women (the Indigenous people of Guam), to protect abortion access more than 30 years ago. At the time, it was estimated that the majority of OB-GYNs on the island provided abortion services. However, just as we have seen throughout the United States, decades of stigmatizing political rhetoric, harassment, and increasingly restrictive laws have steadily pushed abortion out of reach in Guam.
But there are real and significant ways the fight to protect abortion access in Guam differs from that fight stateside. Guam, the largest and southernmost of the Mariana Islands chain, is located nearly 4,000 miles from Hawai‘i and about 1,500 miles from the Philippines. The last 400 years of Guam’s history have been marked by colonization by Spain, Japan, and the United States. Guam’s current political status is as an unincorporated, organized territory of the United States. Guamanians are U.S. citizens and have the same constitutional right to abortion as anyone else in the United States, but cannot vote in U.S. presidential elections. As with all abortion restrictions, these laws disproportionately harm people of color and people with low incomes: In Guam, it is Chamorro women, the Indigenous people of Guam, who not only carry the unjust weight of centuries of colonialism and imperialism, but also the disproportionate burdens of laws that strip them of the ability to make the best decision for themselves and their families about their pregnancies.
Without meaningful access to abortion on the island, people in Guam are being forced to travel several thousand miles each way to Hawai‘i, for which airfare alone costs more than a thousand dollars, just to get the care they need. That is unconscionable, not to mention unconstitutional — no court has ever upheld a law that imposes such a burden on people seeking abortion care. And during the COVID-19 pandemic, this forced travel carries extra risk and burden. Travel restrictions and quarantines in both Hawai‘i and Guam make it even more difficult to access care. Every day of quarantine escalates the cost of travel, requires more time off work and away from family and children, and makes it all the more difficult to keep one’s abortion decision private. The lack of abortion access also creates unique burdens for U.S. servicemembers stationed on the island — particularly for enlisted women, who live on extremely restricted incomes and are disproportionately people of color — who are already subjected to federal laws designed to push abortion out of reach.
The fight for access to abortion is not just about legality, but also about dignity and humanity. People who live in Guam have the same right not only to constitutionally protected health care, but to that dignity, as anyone else in the United States. We are proud to stand with Chamorro women and people in Guam, and to continue to work alongside them for a world where everyone is able to receive the abortion care they need and create their families without barriers, fear, stigma, or political interference.
Published January 28, 2021 at 05:40PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/39rAkHr
The Bahamas : 2020 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for The Bahamas
Published January 28, 2021 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
My driver’s license is just like yours. It has my photo, date of birth, and other standard descriptors. Under gender, however, you’ll find not M or F, but X.
In 2017, I became the first person in the country to obtain an official nonbinary, gender-neutral X-marker on my driver’s license. I live in Washington D.C., which was among the first jurisdictions in the U.S. to officially offer an X marker to recognize nonbinary people as well as those who simply want a gender-neutral form of ID. At the same time, D.C. also removed requirements for a medical or third-party certification of gender to correct a gender marker. I’m proud to have joined LGBTQ+ activists in D.C. in making these policies happen.
Movements for trans and nonbinary equity have made significant progress since I got my nonbinary ID in 2017. Across the country, more than 124 million people live in jurisdictions that are now issuing state IDs with X markers, and over 93 million live in jurisdictions that issue birth certificates with an X designation.
Still, only 11 percent of trans people nationwide have an accurate name and gender marker on all IDs and records. Sixty-eight percent do not have any IDs displaying their accurate name and gender. And at the federal level, the government still does not permit gender neutral or nonbinary markers on passports, social security records, and most other federal documents. It’s time for our federal government to catch up. The Biden administration has an opportunity to affirm trans and nonbinary rights by permitting X gender markers on all federal IDs.
The first time I used my nonbinary driver’s license was to pass through airport security, and I prepared for the worst. I brought copies of the D.C. policy and newspaper articles about it, so if somebody were to question me or say I had a fraudulent ID, I would be able to show them that it’s real. But nobody even seemed to notice or comment upon the X listed for gender. I was glad. I have flown many times since then without ever having someone question the gender on my ID.
I had a similar experience when I tried to use my first birth certificate with an X marker, which I got from Connecticut in 2019. I decided to try it out on my way home from a cruise trip later that year. Again, I planned for the worst. I made an emergency plan, alerted some friends, and put a 24-hour legal hotline on speed dial in case I was detained. And again, despite all my fears and all my preparation, the immigration officials did not seem to notice the X gender marker.
My X-marked ID means a lot to me, especially as a U.S. citizen of Japanese descent. In Japan, the term x-gender (x-jendā) has existed since the 1990s to describe gender nonbinary people. Other countries recognize X designations under international passport standards, and a growing number of countries include an X designation option on their passports. But my U.S. passport still does not have an X marker.
Applying for My First Nonbinary Passport
President Biden promised to support X-marker IDs when he was running for office, but I’m not going to wait around for that promise to officially materialize. I believe I have a legal and human right to access accurate ID documents. All my other documents say I am nonbinary. So why shouldn’t my passport reflect the same? Anything else would be a lie.
On Inauguration Day, I went to a passport acceptance facility to apply for an accurate, nonbinary passport in person. To prepare, I assembled various documents to support my case, including my nonbinary birth certificate and driver’s license, as well as a court order that declares I am nonbinary. I also provided medical certification, which is something that the Department of State currently requests of all transgender people applying for a corrected gender marker, but which presents massive barriers to accessing accurate ID. Getting medical certification could mean finding and paying for unnecessary medical appointments just for a provider to fill out paperwork.
Even the American Medical Association says the gender on our IDs should be “as reported by the individual and without need for verification by a medical professional.” Medical certification is a waste of time and money. We are in the midst of a horrifying pandemic, and forcing healthcare providers to go through unnecessary appointments and paperwork is ridiculous. It also forces trans people to make difficult decisions about potentially spending hundreds of dollars on medical appointments and having to come out to a physician, which is not always the safest and best choice, especially when many providers still have little to no training on trans and nonbinary issues.
When I first came out to my physician as nonbinary and asked for his support, I was terrified that he would say no, and that it would deteriorate the trust in our relationship, or even end it. Fortunately, he gave me a fierce yes, and told me he agreed that the government’s requirement of medical certification for this matter is absurd.
In my doctor’s certification letter, he explained that my access to nonbinary ID is important for my health and wellbeing, which is his priority. He also explained that it aligns with contemporary medical standards, and it’s important for the accurate counting of nonbinary people in government demographic data. Whether it’s for the U.S. Census or for social research, we need to know the differences and disparities in our communities. When trans or nonbinary people are not included in demographic data, it means our communities do not get the funding and support we deserve. That’s one of the reasons why the federal government should ensure access to accurate gender markers not just for passports, but for Social Security and other records as well. As a nonbinary person, I want to be counted.
I have a lot of privilege that has allowed me to break barriers and move through the world: I have had access to higher education, a certain amount of time and resources, networks of activist friends, and lawyers who can help. And yet, I’ve experienced street harassment and even physical assault because of being nonbinary. I’ve also seen editorials written to demean me, and horrifying comments on news articles saying that nonbinary people should be sent to a “guillotine” or “gas chamber.” All of these acts of violence seek to erase me. I do not need the federal government erasing me, too.
It’s a depressing and degrading experience for your government to deny your existence. I am lucky to have had a positive outcome with my physician and IDs, but for many trans or nonbinary people, being forced to get medical certification just to have an accurate passport can be devastating to their health and finances. Nobody should be forced to present documents that tell lies about who you are, and trans and nonbinary people should not have to endure cruel legal confrontations in order to access our human rights. The reality is that cisgender people are not forced to get these same medical certifications when they apply for passports. It’s a discriminatory policy.
I have long said that gender markers should not be necessary on IDs, and there are human rights principles that agree. We will keep working with the government to evaluate where they can remove gender markers, but the first steps are to ensure everyone has access to an accurate ID and remove unnecessary barriers such as medical certification requirements and other expenses. The Biden administration must issue an executive order directing all federal agencies to add a nonbinary and gender-neutral X designation to all federal IDs and records, and to remove documentation requirements for updating gender markers. We must make sure the administration follows through on ensuring our right to an accurate ID that represents who we are.
In the meantime, I’m not waiting around.
Published January 27, 2021 at 08:36PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/36i2VNA
My driver’s license is just like yours. It has my photo, date of birth, and other standard descriptors. Under gender, however, you’ll find not M or F, but X.
In 2017, I became the first person in the country to obtain an official nonbinary, gender-neutral X-marker on my driver’s license. I live in Washington D.C., which was among the first jurisdictions in the U.S. to officially offer an X marker to recognize nonbinary people as well as those who simply want a gender-neutral form of ID. At the same time, D.C. also removed requirements for a medical or third-party certification of gender to correct a gender marker. I’m proud to have joined LGBTQ+ activists in D.C. in making these policies happen.
Movements for trans and nonbinary equity have made significant progress since I got my nonbinary ID in 2017. Across the country, more than 124 million people live in jurisdictions that are now issuing state IDs with X markers, and over 93 million live in jurisdictions that issue birth certificates with an X designation.
Still, only 11 percent of trans people nationwide have an accurate name and gender marker on all IDs and records. Sixty-eight percent do not have any IDs displaying their accurate name and gender. And at the federal level, the government still does not permit gender neutral or nonbinary markers on passports, social security records, and most other federal documents. It’s time for our federal government to catch up. The Biden administration has an opportunity to affirm trans and nonbinary rights by permitting X gender markers on all federal IDs.
The first time I used my nonbinary driver’s license was to pass through airport security, and I prepared for the worst. I brought copies of the D.C. policy and newspaper articles about it, so if somebody were to question me or say I had a fraudulent ID, I would be able to show them that it’s real. But nobody even seemed to notice or comment upon the X listed for gender. I was glad. I have flown many times since then without ever having someone question the gender on my ID.
I had a similar experience when I tried to use my first birth certificate with an X marker, which I got from Connecticut in 2019. I decided to try it out on my way home from a cruise trip later that year. Again, I planned for the worst. I made an emergency plan, alerted some friends, and put a 24-hour legal hotline on speed dial in case I was detained. And again, despite all my fears and all my preparation, the immigration officials did not seem to notice the X gender marker.
My X-marked ID means a lot to me, especially as a U.S. citizen of Japanese descent. In Japan, the term x-gender (x-jendā) has existed since the 1990s to describe gender nonbinary people. Other countries recognize X designations under international passport standards, and a growing number of countries include an X designation option on their passports. But my U.S. passport still does not have an X marker.
Applying for My First Nonbinary Passport
President Biden promised to support X-marker IDs when he was running for office, but I’m not going to wait around for that promise to officially materialize. I believe I have a legal and human right to access accurate ID documents. All my other documents say I am nonbinary. So why shouldn’t my passport reflect the same? Anything else would be a lie.
On Inauguration Day, I went to a passport acceptance facility to apply for an accurate, nonbinary passport in person. To prepare, I assembled various documents to support my case, including my nonbinary birth certificate and driver’s license, as well as a court order that declares I am nonbinary. I also provided medical certification, which is something that the Department of State currently requests of all transgender people applying for a corrected gender marker, but which presents massive barriers to accessing accurate ID. Getting medical certification could mean finding and paying for unnecessary medical appointments just for a provider to fill out paperwork.
Even the American Medical Association says the gender on our IDs should be “as reported by the individual and without need for verification by a medical professional.” Medical certification is a waste of time and money. We are in the midst of a horrifying pandemic, and forcing healthcare providers to go through unnecessary appointments and paperwork is ridiculous. It also forces trans people to make difficult decisions about potentially spending hundreds of dollars on medical appointments and having to come out to a physician, which is not always the safest and best choice, especially when many providers still have little to no training on trans and nonbinary issues.
When I first came out to my physician as nonbinary and asked for his support, I was terrified that he would say no, and that it would deteriorate the trust in our relationship, or even end it. Fortunately, he gave me a fierce yes, and told me he agreed that the government’s requirement of medical certification for this matter is absurd.
In my doctor’s certification letter, he explained that my access to nonbinary ID is important for my health and wellbeing, which is his priority. He also explained that it aligns with contemporary medical standards, and it’s important for the accurate counting of nonbinary people in government demographic data. Whether it’s for the U.S. Census or for social research, we need to know the differences and disparities in our communities. When trans or nonbinary people are not included in demographic data, it means our communities do not get the funding and support we deserve. That’s one of the reasons why the federal government should ensure access to accurate gender markers not just for passports, but for Social Security and other records as well. As a nonbinary person, I want to be counted.
I have a lot of privilege that has allowed me to break barriers and move through the world: I have had access to higher education, a certain amount of time and resources, networks of activist friends, and lawyers who can help. And yet, I’ve experienced street harassment and even physical assault because of being nonbinary. I’ve also seen editorials written to demean me, and horrifying comments on news articles saying that nonbinary people should be sent to a “guillotine” or “gas chamber.” All of these acts of violence seek to erase me. I do not need the federal government erasing me, too.
It’s a depressing and degrading experience for your government to deny your existence. I am lucky to have had a positive outcome with my physician and IDs, but for many trans or nonbinary people, being forced to get medical certification just to have an accurate passport can be devastating to their health and finances. Nobody should be forced to present documents that tell lies about who you are, and trans and nonbinary people should not have to endure cruel legal confrontations in order to access our human rights. The reality is that cisgender people are not forced to get these same medical certifications when they apply for passports. It’s a discriminatory policy.
I have long said that gender markers should not be necessary on IDs, and there are human rights principles that agree. We will keep working with the government to evaluate where they can remove gender markers, but the first steps are to ensure everyone has access to an accurate ID and remove unnecessary barriers such as medical certification requirements and other expenses. The Biden administration must issue an executive order directing all federal agencies to add a nonbinary and gender-neutral X designation to all federal IDs and records, and to remove documentation requirements for updating gender markers. We must make sure the administration follows through on ensuring our right to an accurate ID that represents who we are.
In the meantime, I’m not waiting around.
Published January 27, 2021 at 03:06PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/36i2VNA
President Biden: The Time To Restore Net Neutrality Is Now
Just over four years ago, Donald Trump’s Federal Communications Commission eliminated net neutrality rules that ensured a free and open internet. Without these critical protections, internet service providers, or ISPs, were no longer required to provide equal access to all lawful content on the internet. That means ISPs were free to speed up customer access to information they like — either because they agreed with the content politically, the opinion advanced their corporate interests, or a business partner was paying them to give its content preferential treatment. At the same time, ISPs were likewise free to deliberately slow down customer access to content they didn’t like, or to block it entirely.
Through almost every political lens, getting rid of net neutrality was viewed as a terrible move. It turns out, Americans love a free and open internet. They want to have access to receive and communicate information free of corporate censorship. Even in Trump’s divided states of America, people from every background and political philosophy were united in their desire to bring net neutrality back. According to a 2018 University of Maryland poll, 82 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Democrats, and 85 percent of independents favor restoring net neutrality.
Proponents of net neutrality put up a fight. In 2018, the Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-47, via the Congressional Review Act, to reject the FCC’s elimination of net neutrality protections (the House never got the chance to vote on the CRA). Throughout the nation, governors and state legislatures adopted laws and executive orders seeking to preserve net neutrality in their states. And the ACLU may have permanently harmed several of its staff members by filming them eating dangerously hot chicken wings while pleading with the federal government to save net neutrality.
With this overwhelming, pro-net neutrality consensus, who exactly were net neutrality’s opponents? The answer was the ISPs, because eliminating net neutrality cleared the way for them to make a lot more money. Unsurprisingly, the FCC’s successful effort to kill net neutrality was led by its chairperson, Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer. Pai was all too pleased to do the bidding of his former (and perhaps future) employers, and Trump was happy to go along because, well, Trump loves giving wealthy companies more money, even when doing so comes at the expense of regular Americans.
Net neutrality advocates always knew that despite strong state-level actions, the only route to fully restoring net neutrality would be through a new president and FCC. Well guess what? As of Jan. 20, we have a new president who cares about the liberty and freedoms of the American people more than corporate profits, and a new vacancy on the FCC after Ajit Pai resigned on Inauguration Day that, when filled, should provide a 3-2 commissioners majority in favor of net neutrality.
Rarely are such important victories so ripe for the picking. We can get there, but victory is not yet 100 percent assured. We must remind President Biden that the time to fully restore net neutrality is now, and that he should reject any legislative or administrative compromises that would result in a “net neutrality lite.”
People’s access to a free and open internet should never be compromised. Please help us finish this fight by taking to social media and urging the president (@POTUS) and the acting FCC chair (@JRosenworcel) to restore #NetNeutrality within the Biden administration’s first 100 days. The ACLU will do everything we can as well — except for making another hot sauce video; I still can’t feel my tongue after the last one.
Published January 26, 2021 at 09:38PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/39hzQ6Q
President Biden: The Time To Restore Net Neutrality Is Now
Just over four years ago, Donald Trump’s Federal Communications Commission eliminated net neutrality rules that ensured a free and open internet. Without these critical protections, internet service providers, or ISPs, were no longer required to provide equal access to all lawful content on the internet. That means ISPs were free to speed up customer access to information they like — either because they agreed with the content politically, the opinion advanced their corporate interests, or a business partner was paying them to give its content preferential treatment. At the same time, ISPs were likewise free to deliberately slow down customer access to content they didn’t like, or to block it entirely.
Through almost every political lens, getting rid of net neutrality was viewed as a terrible move. It turns out, Americans love a free and open internet. They want to have access to receive and communicate information free of corporate censorship. Even in Trump’s divided states of America, people from every background and political philosophy were united in their desire to bring net neutrality back. According to a 2018 University of Maryland poll, 82 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Democrats, and 85 percent of independents favor restoring net neutrality.
Proponents of net neutrality put up a fight. In 2018, the Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-47, via the Congressional Review Act, to reject the FCC’s elimination of net neutrality protections (the House never got the chance to vote on the CRA). Throughout the nation, governors and state legislatures adopted laws and executive orders seeking to preserve net neutrality in their states. And the ACLU may have permanently harmed several of its staff members by filming them eating dangerously hot chicken wings while pleading with the federal government to save net neutrality.
With this overwhelming, pro-net neutrality consensus, who exactly were net neutrality’s opponents? The answer was the ISPs, because eliminating net neutrality cleared the way for them to make a lot more money. Unsurprisingly, the FCC’s successful effort to kill net neutrality was led by its chairperson, Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer. Pai was all too pleased to do the bidding of his former (and perhaps future) employers, and Trump was happy to go along because, well, Trump loves giving wealthy companies more money, even when doing so comes at the expense of regular Americans.
Net neutrality advocates always knew that despite strong state-level actions, the only route to fully restoring net neutrality would be through a new president and FCC. Well guess what? As of Jan. 20, we have a new president who cares about the liberty and freedoms of the American people more than corporate profits, and a new vacancy on the FCC after Ajit Pai resigned on Inauguration Day that, when filled, should provide a 3-2 commissioners majority in favor of net neutrality.
Rarely are such important victories so ripe for the picking. We can get there, but victory is not yet 100 percent assured. We must remind President Biden that the time to fully restore net neutrality is now, and that he should reject any legislative or administrative compromises that would result in a “net neutrality lite.”
People’s access to a free and open internet should never be compromised. Please help us finish this fight by taking to social media and urging the president (@POTUS) and the acting FCC chair (@JRosenworcel) to restore #NetNeutrality within the Biden administration’s first 100 days. The ACLU will do everything we can as well — except for making another hot sauce video; I still can’t feel my tongue after the last one.
Published January 26, 2021 at 04:08PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/39hzQ6Q
Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC) : Staff Report on the Common Policies of Member Countries, and Common Policies in Support of Member Countries Reform Programs-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Central African Economic and Monetary Community
Published January 22, 2021 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
This week, Joe Biden was inaugurated as President of the United States. As part of his day one agenda, he rescinded one of the Trump administration’s most noxious orders. The Muslim ban, enacted within Trump’s first days in office, blocked virtually all immigration from countries with substantial Muslim populations, including Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.
The order sent people across the world scrambling to avoid permanent separation from their families, their jobs, and their education. Amidst a national outcry and protests in airports and on the streets across the country, the ACLU was able to secure an early victory in the courts.
But, over the years, fighting the Muslim ban became like a game of Whac-a-Mole. The administration would concoct superficial language tweaks to dodge judicial scrutiny, and the ACLU and others would fight anew. In the end, we were left with a ban, rubber stamped by the Supreme Court, that blocked entry to people from 13 countries around the world, mostly in Africa and the Middle East.
This week on At Liberty, we share the stories of three people directly impacted by the Muslim ban, and discuss what ending it will and won’t do for the future of Muslims in America with Manar Waheed, senior legislative and advocacy counsel at the ACLU.
This week, Joe Biden was inaugurated as President of the United States. As part of his day one agenda, he rescinded one of the Trump administration’s most noxious orders. The Muslim ban, enacted within Trump’s first days in office, blocked virtually all immigration from countries with substantial Muslim populations, including Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.
The order sent people across the world scrambling to avoid permanent separation from their families, their jobs, and their education. Amidst a national outcry and protests in airports and on the streets across the country, the ACLU was able to secure an early victory in the courts.
But, over the years, fighting the Muslim ban became like a game of Whac-a-Mole. The administration would concoct superficial language tweaks to dodge judicial scrutiny, and the ACLU and others would fight anew. In the end, we were left with a ban, rubber stamped by the Supreme Court, that blocked entry to people from 13 countries around the world, mostly in Africa and the Middle East.
This week on At Liberty, we share the stories of three people directly impacted by the Muslim ban, and discuss what ending it will and won’t do for the future of Muslims in America with Manar Waheed, senior legislative and advocacy counsel at the ACLU.
The First Amendment Protects Scabby, the 12-Foot Inflatable Rat, Too
Living in New York City, there are some things you just know. You know that if you see a gigantic rat in the subway station you look the other way and pretend it doesn’t exist. And you know that if you see a gigantic inflatable rat in front of a business it means that workers are protesting unfair employer practices.
Scabby the Rat, a 12-foot inflatable rat balloon, is a familiar sight not just in New York but around the country. But the government is now trying to deflate him. Luckily for Scabby, the First Amendment is on his side.
Under existing precedent, unions have a legal right to display Scabby. They cannot be held liable under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the law that governs most private sector employees’ collective bargaining rights, for simply standing with Scabby on a public street. But Peter Robb, the now-fired general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a government agency, has been on an anti-Scabby mission for years. He has succeeded in bringing the question of whether Scabby is protected by the First Amendment back before the NLRB, prompting the board to invite the public to weigh in. Specifically, the NLRB asked whether it could find that displaying Scabby violates the NLRA without also violating the First Amendment.
It cannot. Since speech about labor disputes is constitutionally protected, particularly when it occurs in public spaces, we filed a brief explaining why the First Amendment protects the giant rat balloon.
Scabby is fully protected symbolic speech. We use symbols all the time to express ourselves, from gestures to black armbands, and Scabby is no different. His presence communicates a clear message to workers, labor unions, and the public: worker dissatisfaction and protest against unfair labor practices.
The government argues that unions and workers have diminished speech rights, and that their criticism of businesses is inherently less protected, because unions advocate the economic interests of workers. But the labor movement and the working conditions it seeks to improve are inherently political, as recently exemplified through the ongoing public debate about the health and safety of essential workers. The Supreme Court has recognized this reality and has repeatedly held that speech touching on working conditions and hiring practices is speech on a matter of public concern — a category of highly protected speech. This is all the more true when the speech is directed at the “public square,” or addressed to a public audience — as it is whenever Scabby appears on public sidewalks.
The government also argues that Scabby deserves no First Amendment protection because he is so scary that his mere presence forces people away from a business and encourages other workers to strike. In the government’s words, “the iconic and menacing rat . . . create[s] an emotional and confrontational barrier” because it is “glaring in character and size and an unmistakable symbol of contempt,” in part thanks to “red eyes, fangs, and claws.” Scabby, the government complains, appeals to “emotions,” rather than “to reason.”But speech does not lose protection because it is emotionally persuasive. And to say that Scabby is coercive is absurd. What the government seems to forget is that Scabby is … a balloon. If anything, the real rats scurrying about in a subway station are much more frightening than the fake, inflatable cartoon outside of it.
Finally, the government tries to analogize Scabby to a union picket line, which the Supreme Court has held may be more strictly regulated than other forms of expression. The government’s argument is yet again absurd. Nobody would confuse a giant rat balloon for a picket line. But the bigger problem is that the Supreme Court’s labor picketing cases no longer make any sense. The Supreme Court has recognized this when it comes to everyone from civil rights picketers to anti-abortion picketers, but it has nevertheless allowed restrictions on labor pickets to stand. For too long, labor speech has been afforded second-class status under the First Amendment. The time has come to reevaluate those decisions, and give labor speech the robust First Amendment protections it deserves.
While it may be fun to make light of defending a gigantic rat balloon, the constitutional implications here are very real. The government is attempting to exterminate Scabby because he is a labor symbol. But the First Amendment protects labor unions just as much as anyone else, and the NLRB should recognize that.
Published January 22, 2021 at 09:08PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3qHfvNX
The First Amendment Protects Scabby, the 12-Foot Inflatable Rat, Too
Living in New York City, there are some things you just know. You know that if you see a gigantic rat in the subway station you look the other way and pretend it doesn’t exist. And you know that if you see a gigantic inflatable rat in front of a business it means that workers are protesting unfair employer practices.
Scabby the Rat, a 12-foot inflatable rat balloon, is a familiar sight not just in New York but around the country. But the government is now trying to deflate him. Luckily for Scabby, the First Amendment is on his side.
Under existing precedent, unions have a legal right to display Scabby. They cannot be held liable under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the law that governs most private sector employees’ collective bargaining rights, for simply standing with Scabby on a public street. But Peter Robb, the now-fired general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a government agency, has been on an anti-Scabby mission for years. He has succeeded in bringing the question of whether Scabby is protected by the First Amendment back before the NLRB, prompting the board to invite the public to weigh in. Specifically, the NLRB asked whether it could find that displaying Scabby violates the NLRA without also violating the First Amendment.
It cannot. Since speech about labor disputes is constitutionally protected, particularly when it occurs in public spaces, we filed a brief explaining why the First Amendment protects the giant rat balloon.
Scabby is fully protected symbolic speech. We use symbols all the time to express ourselves, from gestures to black armbands, and Scabby is no different. His presence communicates a clear message to workers, labor unions, and the public: worker dissatisfaction and protest against unfair labor practices.
The government argues that unions and workers have diminished speech rights, and that their criticism of businesses is inherently less protected, because unions advocate the economic interests of workers. But the labor movement and the working conditions it seeks to improve are inherently political, as recently exemplified through the ongoing public debate about the health and safety of essential workers. The Supreme Court has recognized this reality and has repeatedly held that speech touching on working conditions and hiring practices is speech on a matter of public concern — a category of highly protected speech. This is all the more true when the speech is directed at the “public square,” or addressed to a public audience — as it is whenever Scabby appears on public sidewalks.
The government also argues that Scabby deserves no First Amendment protection because he is so scary that his mere presence forces people away from a business and encourages other workers to strike. In the government’s words, “the iconic and menacing rat . . . create[s] an emotional and confrontational barrier” because it is “glaring in character and size and an unmistakable symbol of contempt,” in part thanks to “red eyes, fangs, and claws.” Scabby, the government complains, appeals to “emotions,” rather than “to reason.”But speech does not lose protection because it is emotionally persuasive. And to say that Scabby is coercive is absurd. What the government seems to forget is that Scabby is … a balloon. If anything, the real rats scurrying about in a subway station are much more frightening than the fake, inflatable cartoon outside of it.
Finally, the government tries to analogize Scabby to a union picket line, which the Supreme Court has held may be more strictly regulated than other forms of expression. The government’s argument is yet again absurd. Nobody would confuse a giant rat balloon for a picket line. But the bigger problem is that the Supreme Court’s labor picketing cases no longer make any sense. The Supreme Court has recognized this when it comes to everyone from civil rights picketers to anti-abortion picketers, but it has nevertheless allowed restrictions on labor pickets to stand. For too long, labor speech has been afforded second-class status under the First Amendment. The time has come to reevaluate those decisions, and give labor speech the robust First Amendment protections it deserves.
While it may be fun to make light of defending a gigantic rat balloon, the constitutional implications here are very real. The government is attempting to exterminate Scabby because he is a labor symbol. But the First Amendment protects labor unions just as much as anyone else, and the NLRB should recognize that.
Published January 22, 2021 at 03:38PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3qHfvNX
Cabo Verde : Request for an Extension of the Program Under the Policy Coordination Instrument
Published January 21, 2021 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
These opening lines were a salve after four years of relentless attacks by the Trump administration on LGBTQ people in all aspects of life. This new administration is willing to recognize and work to combat the sobering reality that “transgender Black Americans face unconscionably high levels of workplace discrimination, homelessness, and violence, including fatal violence.” And we now have a president who is planning to follow the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County and who has instructed the applicable federal agencies to do the same.
Contrary to a trending hashtag on social media and the polemics of a few loud voices, President Biden most certainly did not “erase women” — whatever that means. By stating the administration’s intention to follow Supreme Court precedent and federal law, at core all the newly-elected president did was lay out what the law is and agree, unlike his predecessor, to follow it. That includes, as the order makes clear, ensuring that “[c]hildren should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.” If only we lived in a world where this would go without saying; a world where it would be uncontroversial to merely affirm that every young person deserves a chance to learn and thrive and participate in school.
Sadly, that is not the world we live in.
Predictably, powerful individuals and organizations immediately objected to the idea that trans people might actually be protected in schools and began circulating the insidious lie that trans people are inherently a threat to non-transgender women. This is not true in the context of restrooms and locker rooms and it is likewise untrue in the context of sports, where opponents of trans existence have focused their efforts over the last two years.
But whatever opposition anti-trans individuals, organizations, and lawmakers have to trans existence, federal law already prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in employment, education, housing, health care, and credit. And since the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock recognized that it is impossible to discriminate against someone for being LGBTQ without discriminating on the basis of sex, our federal statutes are the source of legal protections for LGBTQ people — not yesterday’s executive order. Those who claim to be victims of Biden’s affirmation of these legal protections are really angry about legal rules that were drafted by Congress decades ago and affirmed by the Supreme Court in June.
What yesterday’s order does mean, though, is that this administration is prepared to vigorously defend and enforce the legal protections that LGBTQ people enjoy under federal law. Every state considering anti-trans bills barring trans people from sports must now consider that they will face a U.S. government that is not facilitating anti-trans discrimination but actually enforcing Title IX’s protections to stop it. Every employer, every landlord, every health care provider that is considering firing or evicting or denying health care to a transgender person must now think about the fact that all three branches of the federal government have made clear that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is illegal.
Now on to the work of ensuring that the Biden administration lives up to this promise, that states end their attacks on trans youth, and that we can build a movement for gender justice that works to eradicate the stereotypes and assumptions about who we are and must be based solely on the sex we are assigned at birth.
These opening lines were a salve after four years of relentless attacks by the Trump administration on LGBTQ people in all aspects of life. This new administration is willing to recognize and work to combat the sobering reality that “transgender Black Americans face unconscionably high levels of workplace discrimination, homelessness, and violence, including fatal violence.” And we now have a president who is planning to follow the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County and who has instructed the applicable federal agencies to do the same.
Contrary to a trending hashtag on social media and the polemics of a few loud voices, President Biden most certainly did not “erase women” — whatever that means. By stating the administration’s intention to follow Supreme Court precedent and federal law, at core all the newly-elected president did was lay out what the law is and agree, unlike his predecessor, to follow it. That includes, as the order makes clear, ensuring that “[c]hildren should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.” If only we lived in a world where this would go without saying; a world where it would be uncontroversial to merely affirm that every young person deserves a chance to learn and thrive and participate in school.
Sadly, that is not the world we live in.
Predictably, powerful individuals and organizations immediately objected to the idea that trans people might actually be protected in schools and began circulating the insidious lie that trans people are inherently a threat to non-transgender women. This is not true in the context of restrooms and locker rooms and it is likewise untrue in the context of sports, where opponents of trans existence have focused their efforts over the last two years.
But whatever opposition anti-trans individuals, organizations, and lawmakers have to trans existence, federal law already prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in employment, education, housing, health care, and credit. And since the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock recognized that it is impossible to discriminate against someone for being LGBTQ without discriminating on the basis of sex, our federal statutes are the source of legal protections for LGBTQ people — not yesterday’s executive order. Those who claim to be victims of Biden’s affirmation of these legal protections are really angry about legal rules that were drafted by Congress decades ago and affirmed by the Supreme Court in June.
What yesterday’s order does mean, though, is that this administration is prepared to vigorously defend and enforce the legal protections that LGBTQ people enjoy under federal law. Every state considering anti-trans bills barring trans people from sports must now consider that they will face a U.S. government that is not facilitating anti-trans discrimination but actually enforcing Title IX’s protections to stop it. Every employer, every landlord, every health care provider that is considering firing or evicting or denying health care to a transgender person must now think about the fact that all three branches of the federal government have made clear that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is illegal.
Now on to the work of ensuring that the Biden administration lives up to this promise, that states end their attacks on trans youth, and that we can build a movement for gender justice that works to eradicate the stereotypes and assumptions about who we are and must be based solely on the sex we are assigned at birth.
Israel : 2020 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Israel
Published January 21, 2021 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
Picture it: The United States is riven by social unrest and political polarization. Millions of Americans feel unwelcome in the only home they’ve ever known. Thousands of immigrants are being rounded up, denied due process, and even deported. A rise in hateful, nationalist rhetoric is fueling anxiety over our borders, and stoking the flames of white supremacy and racial violence within them. Women — and even members of the LGBTQ community — are reaching new heights of visibility, political power, and personal autonomy, but also enduring violent backlash. As our democratic principles — from freedom of religion to freedom of the press — are under siege, masses of people, young and old, are taking to the streets to protest and demand their rights.
The year is 1920.
In response to this massive suppression of free speech and civil liberties, 101 years ago today, the American Civil Liberties Union was born. At the time, many of the rights outlined in the constitution were theoretical, untested by the courts, and of little practical meaning to most people, especially women and people of color. The founders of the ACLU set out to change that: to amplify the voices of the marginalized and secure civil rights, liberty, and justice for all. Decidedly intersectional, our founders included Helen Keller, Crystal Eastman, James Weldon Johnson, and of course, Roger Baldwin.
It’s deliciously fitting that the ACLU’s 101st birthday coincides with the very day Donald Trump leaves office. The ACLU has seen presidents come and go. As we know, some have tested this country’s dedication to democratic values more than others. Since Donald Trump took the oath of office, we’ve filed 413 legal actions, turned out thousands of people to airports, courthouses, and mass mobilizations. We filed our last legal action against the Trump administration on Friday. We stood watch until the minute Trump left office, and our watch continues.
These past four years, we won victories to stop LGBTQ employment discrimination, protected and expanded voting rights, blocked state-level abortion bans, worked to reunite families needlessly separated at our Southern border, and battled Trump’s Muslim ban in court numerous times.
With his policies and rhetoric, President Trump tried to divide us. He tried to make us a nation of us versus them. He pitted immigrants against citizens, and fanned the flames of white supremacy while Black people were murdered by police. He called certain cities and states more deserving than others. He waged war against our free press.
After 101 years, we at ACLU are not surprised when presidents disappoint us. To be clear, we never believed that we were living in Donald Trump’s America. Rather, he lives in our America. In our United States of America, we the people means all of us. So rest assured that the ACLU will keep fighting to advance freedoms where we can, and defend them where we must. We are committed to working with but also holding President Biden and Vice President Harris accountable to the promise of our constitution. With our help, they will be the transformational leaders that our country needs and deserves right now. And thanks to people like you, we now have the strongest ACLU our nation has ever known.
There is work to do to create a more perfect union. We know there are battles just around the corner to preserve the rights many have fought and won. We will work to forge an inclusive pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented and stateless people living in the United States — without caveats or tradeoffs. We join the chorus calling for this nation’s long overdue racial reckoning.
The ACLU won’t rest until we live in an America where equality and justice are a lived reality for all of us. We never lost hope, and we are not only more resolute than ever. We are certain that our ACLU values and principles will continue to prevail for the next 101 years. “We the people” deserve — and will accept — nothing less.
Published January 21, 2021 at 12:37AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3qE8KMZ
Picture it: The United States is riven by social unrest and political polarization. Millions of Americans feel unwelcome in the only home they’ve ever known. Thousands of immigrants are being rounded up, denied due process, and even deported. A rise in hateful, nationalist rhetoric is fueling anxiety over our borders, and stoking the flames of white supremacy and racial violence within them. Women — and even members of the LGBTQ community — are reaching new heights of visibility, political power, and personal autonomy, but also enduring violent backlash. As our democratic principles — from freedom of religion to freedom of the press — are under siege, masses of people, young and old, are taking to the streets to protest and demand their rights.
The year is 1920.
In response to this massive suppression of free speech and civil liberties, 101 years ago today, the American Civil Liberties Union was born. At the time, many of the rights outlined in the constitution were theoretical, untested by the courts, and of little practical meaning to most people, especially women and people of color. The founders of the ACLU set out to change that: to amplify the voices of the marginalized and secure civil rights, liberty, and justice for all. Decidedly intersectional, our founders included Helen Keller, Crystal Eastman, James Weldon Johnson, and of course, Roger Baldwin.
It’s deliciously fitting that the ACLU’s 101st birthday coincides with the very day Donald Trump leaves office. The ACLU has seen presidents come and go. As we know, some have tested this country’s dedication to democratic values more than others. Since Donald Trump took the oath of office, we’ve filed 413 legal actions, turned out thousands of people to airports, courthouses, and mass mobilizations. We filed our last legal action against the Trump administration on Friday. We stood watch until the minute Trump left office, and our watch continues.
These past four years, we won victories to stop LGBTQ employment discrimination, protected and expanded voting rights, blocked state-level abortion bans, worked to reunite families needlessly separated at our Southern border, and battled Trump’s Muslim ban in court numerous times.
With his policies and rhetoric, President Trump tried to divide us. He tried to make us a nation of us versus them. He pitted immigrants against citizens, and fanned the flames of white supremacy while Black people were murdered by police. He called certain cities and states more deserving than others. He waged war against our free press.
After 101 years, we at ACLU are not surprised when presidents disappoint us. To be clear, we never believed that we were living in Donald Trump’s America. Rather, he lives in our America. In our United States of America, we the people means all of us. So rest assured that the ACLU will keep fighting to advance freedoms where we can, and defend them where we must. We are committed to working with but also holding President Biden and Vice President Harris accountable to the promise of our constitution. With our help, they will be the transformational leaders that our country needs and deserves right now. And thanks to people like you, we now have the strongest ACLU our nation has ever known.
There is work to do to create a more perfect union. We know there are battles just around the corner to preserve the rights many have fought and won. We will work to forge an inclusive pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented and stateless people living in the United States — without caveats or tradeoffs. We join the chorus calling for this nation’s long overdue racial reckoning.
The ACLU won’t rest until we live in an America where equality and justice are a lived reality for all of us. We never lost hope, and we are not only more resolute than ever. We are certain that our ACLU values and principles will continue to prevail for the next 101 years. “We the people” deserve — and will accept — nothing less.
Published January 20, 2021 at 07:07PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3qE8KMZ
Benin : Requests for Disbursement Under the Rapid Credit Facility and Purchase Under the Rapid Financing Instrument-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Benin
Published January 19, 2021 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
Senegal : Second Review Under the Policy Coordination Instrument and Request for Modification of Quantitative Targets-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published January 19, 2021 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
The Moral Imperative to Eliminate the Historic Stain of Family Separation
In 2018, the ACLU brought a successful lawsuit, Ms. L. v. ICE, against the Trump administration’s barbaric practice of forcibly separating migrant families. At the time, we had no idea of the scale and depravity of the injustice, but now know that thousands of children were deliberately ripped from their parents, including toddlers and babies.
This fall, we reported that hundreds of these families had still not been located, triggering a promise by President-elect Biden to create a task force to address family separation. We welcome all assistance the Biden administration can provide to help us find these families. But, critically, the new administration must do more than that if it is going to fully address the family separation tragedy it inherited.
Understandably, many are asking why hundreds of families remain missing after so many years and what has happened to the thousands of other families who were located.
The reason so many families have not been located is because the Trump administration withheld their names and then failed to disclose information that could have helped us find them. Indeed, it was not until 2019 that we even received the supposedly final list of children, and by then some of the children had been without their parents for nearly two years.
Making matters worse, the contact information for the families frequently was stale, too vague, or non-existent. While an ACLU-convened steering committee (consisting of the Paul Weiss law firm, KIND, WRC, and Justice in Motion) has nonetheless managed to find most of the families even with this limited information, the parents of 611 children have yet to be located.
We repeatedly asked the Trump administration whether it had additional contact information, and, over and over, the administration told us it did not. But last month, in response to the international outcry over the still-missing families, the administration suddenly gave us phone numbers and addresses, claiming it was an oversight. Beyond any additional assistance the Biden administration can give us to find the still-missing families, it must do four things.
First, it must permit deported families to reunite in the United States. Many mistakenly assume that only the missing 611 remain separated. But the Trump administration deported hundreds of other parents without their children (often telling the parent that their child would meet them on the plane only to have the plane take off without the child). We have found many of these still-separated families, but the Trump administration gave them only two brutal choices: remain separated from their children or bring their children back to the very danger they fled in the first place. The Biden administration has the power to immediately “parole” these families into the United States, allowing them to reunite in safety here.
Second, the Biden administration must use its executive power to protect these families from deportation once reunited in the U.S. The Trump administration has been deporting them, but given what these families have endured, that is unconscionable. And once their deportations are deferred, the Biden administration must explore all available means to confer permanent legal status. Importantly, this will also help us locate the missing 611, because families will be more willing to come forward if they know they will be safe.
Third, the Biden task force must create a fund to provide basic necessities, including trauma-informed care for both the children and parents. Without this help, these families stand little chance. As the American Academy of Pediatrics has concluded, the Trump administration engaged in “child abuse” that has caused lasting trauma. Physicians for Human Rights has gone further and called it torture.
Finally, the task force must ensure there are no more family separations so we do not repeat this tragedy.
The Biden administration is inheriting tremendous challenges. But addressing family separation should be a no-brainer. In 2018, when the country learned that babies and toddlers were being ripped from their parents’ arms, the public revulsion spanned the ideological spectrum. The sentiment was uniform: our government should not take babies from their parents and use them as political pawns.
Ultimately, it is a moral imperative to eliminate the historic stain on this country. I have been doing this work at the ACLU for nearly 30 years and have never seen a more inhumane practice or one that received such widespread, swift, and unequivocal condemnation. I still worry, though, that all the talk of aggregate statistics and abstract policy prescriptions will blur the human dimension, and the fact that the trauma caused to each of these children by family separation is its own tragic story.
I hope the Biden administration will remember stories like that of one of the first reunited families in our case, whose mother told us that her 4-year-old son kept asking if they were going to take him away again. Or the little boy with glasses whose mother said that he was unable to get his glasses case before he was taken away screaming, and that she worried every day whether the government would get him a new pair if they broke.
Or the parents who knew their children would be taken and asked, but were denied, the opportunity for a moment to brace the children for what was about to happen. Or the mother who was forced to watch as agents drove away with her 18-month-old baby while the baby craned his neck to get one last glimpse of her. Or all the other mothers and fathers who were not even told where their children had been taken or given the chance even to say goodbye, left only to wave through a glass window.
Published January 20, 2021 at 03:02AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2LKPI8M
The Moral Imperative to Eliminate the Historic Stain of Family Separation
In 2018, the ACLU brought a successful lawsuit, Ms. L. v. ICE, against the Trump administration’s barbaric practice of forcibly separating migrant families. At the time, we had no idea of the scale and depravity of the injustice, but now know that thousands of children were deliberately ripped from their parents, including toddlers and babies.
This fall, we reported that hundreds of these families had still not been located, triggering a promise by President-elect Biden to create a task force to address family separation. We welcome all assistance the Biden administration can provide to help us find these families. But, critically, the new administration must do more than that if it is going to fully address the family separation tragedy it inherited.
Understandably, many are asking why hundreds of families remain missing after so many years and what has happened to the thousands of other families who were located.
The reason so many families have not been located is because the Trump administration withheld their names and then failed to disclose information that could have helped us find them. Indeed, it was not until 2019 that we even received the supposedly final list of children, and by then some of the children had been without their parents for nearly two years.
Making matters worse, the contact information for the families frequently was stale, too vague, or non-existent. While an ACLU-convened steering committee (consisting of the Paul Weiss law firm, KIND, WRC, and Justice in Motion) has nonetheless managed to find most of the families even with this limited information, the parents of 611 children have yet to be located.
We repeatedly asked the Trump administration whether it had additional contact information, and, over and over, the administration told us it did not. But last month, in response to the international outcry over the still-missing families, the administration suddenly gave us phone numbers and addresses, claiming it was an oversight. Beyond any additional assistance the Biden administration can give us to find the still-missing families, it must do four things.
First, it must permit deported families to reunite in the United States. Many mistakenly assume that only the missing 611 remain separated. But the Trump administration deported hundreds of other parents without their children (often telling the parent that their child would meet them on the plane only to have the plane take off without the child). We have found many of these still-separated families, but the Trump administration gave them only two brutal choices: remain separated from their children or bring their children back to the very danger they fled in the first place. The Biden administration has the power to immediately “parole” these families into the United States, allowing them to reunite in safety here.
Second, the Biden administration must use its executive power to protect these families from deportation once reunited in the U.S. The Trump administration has been deporting them, but given what these families have endured, that is unconscionable. And once their deportations are deferred, the Biden administration must explore all available means to confer permanent legal status. Importantly, this will also help us locate the missing 611, because families will be more willing to come forward if they know they will be safe.
Third, the Biden task force must create a fund to provide basic necessities, including trauma-informed care for both the children and parents. Without this help, these families stand little chance. As the American Academy of Pediatrics has concluded, the Trump administration engaged in “child abuse” that has caused lasting trauma. Physicians for Human Rights has gone further and called it torture.
Finally, the task force must ensure there are no more family separations so we do not repeat this tragedy.
The Biden administration is inheriting tremendous challenges. But addressing family separation should be a no-brainer. In 2018, when the country learned that babies and toddlers were being ripped from their parents’ arms, the public revulsion spanned the ideological spectrum. The sentiment was uniform: our government should not take babies from their parents and use them as political pawns.
Ultimately, it is a moral imperative to eliminate the historic stain on this country. I have been doing this work at the ACLU for nearly 30 years and have never seen a more inhumane practice or one that received such widespread, swift, and unequivocal condemnation. I still worry, though, that all the talk of aggregate statistics and abstract policy prescriptions will blur the human dimension, and the fact that the trauma caused to each of these children by family separation is its own tragic story.
I hope the Biden administration will remember stories like that of one of the first reunited families in our case, whose mother told us that her 4-year-old son kept asking if they were going to take him away again. Or the little boy with glasses whose mother said that he was unable to get his glasses case before he was taken away screaming, and that she worried every day whether the government would get him a new pair if they broke.
Or the parents who knew their children would be taken and asked, but were denied, the opportunity for a moment to brace the children for what was about to happen. Or the mother who was forced to watch as agents drove away with her 18-month-old baby while the baby craned his neck to get one last glimpse of her. Or all the other mothers and fathers who were not even told where their children had been taken or given the chance even to say goodbye, left only to wave through a glass window.
Published January 19, 2021 at 09:32PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2LKPI8M
