Portugal:2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Portugal
Published June 30, 2022 at 07:00PM Read more at imf.org
Republic of Serbia:Second Review Under the Policy Coordination Instrument and Request for Modification of Targets-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Serbia
Published June 29, 2022 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
Why We Use Inclusive Language to Talk About Abortion
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in a shameful ruling that decimated access to abortion. Adding insult to injury, this unprecedented assault on our fundamental rights and bodily autonomy took place during Pride month. Abortion access should concern everyone, and this ruling directly impacts everyone who can become pregnant. That’s why so many LGBTQ+ people are deeply invested in the fight for abortion access.
Who gets abortions?
There is, of course, the obvious answer: women. Cisgender women have abortions more than any other group of people. There is plenty of data to back this up. Abortion among women who can become pregnant is extremely common and nearly one in four women will have an abortion in their lifetime. The vast majority of data available about abortions and abortion access surveys women. That data tells us that the average person who gets an abortion is a woman of color who is already a mother and who lives at or below the federal poverty level.
The more expansive and more accurate answer is anyone who can become pregnant needs to be able to get an abortion if they need or want one, including many cisgender women, some non-binary people, some intersex people, some Two Spirit people, and some trans men.
Yes, people other than women need access to abortion care.
As a bisexual transgender non-binary person, I can become pregnant. I am not a woman — and yet, I could need access to abortion care. I also know that I never want to be pregnant. For me, access to abortion would be a matter of lifesaving health care. When trans people articulate the need for access to abortion services, or that we have accessed abortion care in the past, these experiences are often dismissed by those who want to deny that more people than just cisgender women need abortion. But we’re here, we’ve been here, and we’re not going anywhere.
The fight for abortion rights and LGBTQ+ rights go hand in hand because they are both ultimately about protecting our bodily autonomy. But they’re also intertwined because lesbians, bisexuals, trans people, queer people and yes, some trans gay men, can experience pregnancy and deserve control over if, when, and how we become pregnant, and whether or not we stay pregnant.
Photo by Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto via AP
Yes, men and other people who can’t become pregnant can, and should, care about abortion access.
When conversations about abortion reduce it to a “women’s issue” or an issue only for people who can carry pregnancies, we exclude a wide swath of people.
There is a tendency to exclude men, without an acknowledgment that some trans men can become pregnant and despite the fact that cisgender men are not the only people who can’t become pregnant. Trans women, cisgender women who struggle with infertilty, some intersex people, some trans men, some non-binary people, and some Two Spirit people all cannot become pregnant.
Protest signs and messages often use the framing of “no uterus, no opinion,” ignoring that there are many cisgender women who have and have not carried pregnancies who have had hysterectomies and no longer have a uterus. Hysterectomies are, in fact, the second most common surgery for cisgender women.
Centering who gets to have opinions about abortion around whether or not people are currently able to become pregnant excludes people from our understanding of abortion rights, rather than expanding it.
Restrictions on trans rights and abortion rights come from the same playbook.
In the same breath, we must acknowledge that the systems and structures involved in banning abortion are focused on restricting the rights of women and the rights of trans people. Over 300 anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ bills have been proposed in state legislatures just in 2022, and over 20 new anti-trans bills have become law over the past three years. In the same period of time, 541 of restrictions aimed at pushing abortion out of reach have been proposed and 38 have become law.
Nearly all of these bills politicize our bodily autonomy and access to essential, life-saving health care. Trans affirming health care and abortion are both already hugely expensive medical procedures, often not covered by health insurance. Both are often prohibited from being covered by insurance under state laws.
For trans people, laws in some states prohibit access to gender affirming care, particularly for youth, or worse, criminalize parents who allow their children to access this care. For people who need abortion care, there are legal restrictions that prohibit insurance coverage, enforce long waiting periods for time-sensitive care, and other medically unnecessary barriers.
Any way you slice it, diving into the politics of both abortion access and trans rights requries people who may need an abortion and trans people to be ready to debate why we need access safe, common medical procedures that will save our lives. It is, quite frankly, exhausting to repeatedly ask for acknowledgment of a shared experience, especially one that can be so medically life-altering.
Our bodies are our own. Our health care choices are ours to make. And abortion and gender-affirming care are our right.
Why We Use Inclusive Language to Talk About Abortion
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in a shameful ruling that decimated access to abortion. Adding insult to injury, this unprecedented assault on our fundamental rights and bodily autonomy took place during Pride month. Abortion access should concern everyone, and this ruling directly impacts everyone who can become pregnant. That’s why so many LGBTQ+ people are deeply invested in the fight for abortion access.
Who gets abortions?
There is, of course, the obvious answer: women. Cisgender women have abortions more than any other group of people. There is plenty of data to back this up. Abortion among women who can become pregnant is extremely common and nearly one in four women will have an abortion in their lifetime. The vast majority of data available about abortions and abortion access surveys women. That data tells us that the average person who gets an abortion is a woman of color who is already a mother and who lives at or below the federal poverty level.
The more expansive and more accurate answer is anyone who can become pregnant needs to be able to get an abortion if they need or want one, including many cisgender women, some non-binary people, some intersex people, some Two Spirit people, and some trans men.
Yes, people other than women need access to abortion care.
As a bisexual transgender non-binary person, I can become pregnant. I am not a woman — and yet, I could need access to abortion care. I also know that I never want to be pregnant. For me, access to abortion would be a matter of lifesaving health care. When trans people articulate the need for access to abortion services, or that we have accessed abortion care in the past, these experiences are often dismissed by those who want to deny that more people than just cisgender women need abortion. But we’re here, we’ve been here, and we’re not going anywhere.
The fight for abortion rights and LGBTQ+ rights go hand in hand because they are both ultimately about protecting our bodily autonomy. But they’re also intertwined because lesbians, bisexuals, trans people, queer people and yes, some trans gay men, can experience pregnancy and deserve control over if, when, and how we become pregnant, and whether or not we stay pregnant.
Photo by Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto via AP
Yes, men and other people who can’t become pregnant can, and should, care about abortion access.
When conversations about abortion reduce it to a “women’s issue” or an issue only for people who can carry pregnancies, we exclude a wide swath of people.
There is a tendency to exclude men, without an acknowledgment that some trans men can become pregnant and despite the fact that cisgender men are not the only people who can’t become pregnant. Trans women, cisgender women who struggle with infertilty, some intersex people, some trans men, some non-binary people, and some Two Spirit people all cannot become pregnant.
Protest signs and messages often use the framing of “no uterus, no opinion,” ignoring that there are many cisgender women who have and have not carried pregnancies who have had hysterectomies and no longer have a uterus. Hysterectomies are, in fact, the second most common surgery for cisgender women.
Centering who gets to have opinions about abortion around whether or not people are currently able to become pregnant excludes people from our understanding of abortion rights, rather than expanding it.
Restrictions on trans rights and abortion rights come from the same playbook.
In the same breath, we must acknowledge that the systems and structures involved in banning abortion are focused on restricting the rights of women and the rights of trans people. Over 300 anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ bills have been proposed in state legislatures just in 2022, and over 20 new anti-trans bills have become law over the past three years. In the same period of time, 541 of restrictions aimed at pushing abortion out of reach have been proposed and 38 have become law.
Nearly all of these bills politicize our bodily autonomy and access to essential, life-saving health care. Trans affirming health care and abortion are both already hugely expensive medical procedures, often not covered by health insurance. Both are often prohibited from being covered by insurance under state laws.
For trans people, laws in some states prohibit access to gender affirming care, particularly for youth, or worse, criminalize parents who allow their children to access this care. For people who need abortion care, there are legal restrictions that prohibit insurance coverage, enforce long waiting periods for time-sensitive care, and other medically unnecessary barriers.
Any way you slice it, diving into the politics of both abortion access and trans rights requries people who may need an abortion and trans people to be ready to debate why we need access safe, common medical procedures that will save our lives. It is, quite frankly, exhausting to repeatedly ask for acknowledgment of a shared experience, especially one that can be so medically life-altering.
Our bodies are our own. Our health care choices are ours to make. And abortion and gender-affirming care are our right.
Rwanda:Sixth Review Under the Policy Coordination Instrument and Monetary Policy Consultation Clause-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Rwanda
Published June 29, 2022 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
It’s 2022 and Two Books Are on Trial for ‘Obscenity’
Two books are currently on trial in Virginia for obscenity.
In 2022, that sentence should be shocking. Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court set the high constitutional bar that defines obscenity — a narrow, well-defined category of unprotected speech that excludes any work with serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Since then, few if any books have been deemed obscene. And the standards for restraining a bookseller or library’s ability to distribute a book are even more stringent.
Yet, last month, a Virginia resident initiated obscenity proceedings against two acclaimed books: Gender Queer, a Memoir, by Maia Kobabe, an autobiographical graphic novel that depicts the author’s experience as a non-binary and asexual person; and A Court of Mist and Fury, by Sarah J. Maas, a fantasy novel. The obscenity proceedings come amid a nationwide rise in efforts to restrict people’s access to books, and our ability to read, learn, and think for ourselves — but they could be the first to result in a statewide ban on publication or distribution.
Last week, several independent bookstores and a number of national organizations representing book distributors, authors, and libraries filed joint motions urging a Virginia court to dismiss these obscenity proceedings. We represent these distributors alongside the ACLU of Virginia and Michael Bamberger of Dentons, arguing that the case threatens the rights of both young and adult readers — and the First Amendment rights of our clients, as well as other booksellers, distributors, and publishers, to provide access to such materials.
The books at issue here are not obscene by any stretch of the imagination. And the Virginia statute that has enabled these proceedings is unconstitutional.
Under the statute, the court has the authority to temporarily block all sale and distribution of the books anywhere in Virginia upon a mere finding of “probable obscenity.” And, if the court ultimately determines that the books are indeed obscene, anyone who sells or even lends the books in Virginia could face criminal prosecution, regardless of whether they had prior knowledge of the obscenity proceedings. This would impact all independent bookstores and other distributors in the state of Virginia, even if they have no knowledge that a book has been so much as challenged. And it means a court can restrain the distribution of books that are not legally obscene — or, in other words, fully protected speech.
Furthermore, after entry of a temporary restraining order or a final adjudication of a book’s obscenity, the government can presume that anyone who sells, lends, or otherwise distributes the book in Virginia knows it is obscene. In essence, it creates a strict liability regime for selling or lending books that could impact incredibly broad swaths of people, from booksellers to parents to teachers and others.
Finally, because Virginia applies local rather than statewide community standards to determine obscenity, the law could unconstitutionally allow a ban against the circulation of a book that doesn’t even qualify as obscene in the relevant community.
For these reasons, our clients have asked the court to dismiss both proceedings. Any other result would be obscene.
It’s 2022 and Two Books Are on Trial for ‘Obscenity’
Two books are currently on trial in Virginia for obscenity.
In 2022, that sentence should be shocking. Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court set the high constitutional bar that defines obscenity — a narrow, well-defined category of unprotected speech that excludes any work with serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Since then, few if any books have been deemed obscene. And the standards for restraining a bookseller or library’s ability to distribute a book are even more stringent.
Yet, last month, a Virginia resident initiated obscenity proceedings against two acclaimed books: Gender Queer, a Memoir, by Maia Kobabe, an autobiographical graphic novel that depicts the author’s experience as a non-binary and asexual person; and A Court of Mist and Fury, by Sarah J. Maas, a fantasy novel. The obscenity proceedings come amid a nationwide rise in efforts to restrict people’s access to books, and our ability to read, learn, and think for ourselves — but they could be the first to result in a statewide ban on publication or distribution.
Last week, several independent bookstores and a number of national organizations representing book distributors, authors, and libraries filed joint motions urging a Virginia court to dismiss these obscenity proceedings. We represent these distributors alongside the ACLU of Virginia and Michael Bamberger of Dentons, arguing that the case threatens the rights of both young and adult readers — and the First Amendment rights of our clients, as well as other booksellers, distributors, and publishers, to provide access to such materials.
The books at issue here are not obscene by any stretch of the imagination. And the Virginia statute that has enabled these proceedings is unconstitutional.
Under the statute, the court has the authority to temporarily block all sale and distribution of the books anywhere in Virginia upon a mere finding of “probable obscenity.” And, if the court ultimately determines that the books are indeed obscene, anyone who sells or even lends the books in Virginia could face criminal prosecution, regardless of whether they had prior knowledge of the obscenity proceedings. This would impact all independent bookstores and other distributors in the state of Virginia, even if they have no knowledge that a book has been so much as challenged. And it means a court can restrain the distribution of books that are not legally obscene — or, in other words, fully protected speech.
Furthermore, after entry of a temporary restraining order or a final adjudication of a book’s obscenity, the government can presume that anyone who sells, lends, or otherwise distributes the book in Virginia knows it is obscene. In essence, it creates a strict liability regime for selling or lending books that could impact incredibly broad swaths of people, from booksellers to parents to teachers and others.
Finally, because Virginia applies local rather than statewide community standards to determine obscenity, the law could unconstitutionally allow a ban against the circulation of a book that doesn’t even qualify as obscene in the relevant community.
For these reasons, our clients have asked the court to dismiss both proceedings. Any other result would be obscene.
As classroom censorship bills sweep state legislatures, schools are removingbooks by and about LGBTQ people, BIPOC, and other marginalized groups from curriculums and libraries at an unprecedented rate. This year, more than 111 bills aiming to limit discussions about race and gender in the classroom have been passed or introduced in state legislatures. These efforts effectively erase voices, histories and lived experiences from students’ K-12 education.
In honor of Pride month, three LGBTQ rights advocates share how the recent surge of book bans and classroom censorship bills impact their work, and how they affect the students and teachers whose identities are under attack.
Credit: Maddie McGarvey
Jared Fox (he/him)
Director, Strategic Projects at Cleveland School District in Ohio and Founder at Iris Solutions
Books are incredibly powerful, and the fact that people are trying to ban them just speaks to that. Through books, we can see ourselves and the world around us — as Rudine Sims Bishop mentions, as a mirror, a window, or a sliding glass door allowing us to step into a different world.
As an English teacher, I tried to find books for the classroom that reflected the lived experiences of my students, whether they’re queer or not. I want them to see that they matter, not just in my eyes but in the words on the page. There’s something meaningful about seeing your experience published and bound in a spine.
There’s a fear that reading books with LGBTQ characters will make students gay. But I grew up reading about straight characters, with heterosexual parents, and somehow I ended up gay in this world. So if reading books is supposed to determine your sexual orientation, that woefully failed in my case.
Reading books with LGBTQ characters is important for everybody. Students are going to be better off in the world because of it. Books can expose readers to identities beyond the scope of people they know in their immediate lives — queer people with disabilities, queer people who are immigrants, queer people who wear a hijab — thereby building empathy and understanding of experiences different from their own.
When queer students are denied access to these stories, they lose a piece of their humanity.
For queer students, it validates their existence. When a community says a book is being banned from the library because of its LGBTQ themes, it’s telling students “there’s something wrong with you, there’s something that needs to be legislated or challenged, there’s something about you that is up for debate, that shouldn’t even be in a book.” It tells LGBTQ students they don’t even deserve to be on the shelf — literally and metaphorically. That can be very harmful to students’ self-esteem and the way they see themselves in the world. When queer students are denied access to these stories, they lose a piece of their humanity.
It’s also important to note that many of the books that are banned are also by authors of color, which shows our desire as a society to silence the voices of people of color. It’s yet another example of white supremacy at work. We cannot separate the work of LGBTQ equality from the work of anti-racism because the struggles are so closely intertwined. When we are working towards a better future for LGBTQ folks, we’re working towards a better future for people of color, too. And I think that’s important.
Credit: Maddie McGarvey
Credit: Hannah Yoon
Tiffany Wright (she/her)
Graduate Program Coordinator, Leadership for Teaching and Learning & Interim Chair of the Department of Educational Foundations at Millersville University in Pennsylvania
As a mother to a seventh-grader and a member of university faculty, I’ve seen firsthand how classroom censorship affects students and educators alike, particularly those who are LGBTQ. Teachers are worried they could lose their jobs if they teach books about race and gender, which shortcuts their efficacy as educators as well as their sense of personal well-being. And I can’t imagine it’s easy for young people to witness their own identity and existence being erased from school curricula.
Representation is so, so important. I know what it’s like to grow up unable to see yourself reflected in books or other parts of society and culture. During my childhood in the 1980s, I never saw a book reflecting experiences and identities like my own. It wasn’t until college that I found LGBTQ voices in literature — and even then, I had to seek it out. I think I would have had a very different experience growing up if I had been exposed to LGBTQ voices earlier in my education. For example, maybe I wouldn’t have had to go through adolescence twice — before and after coming out.
I’ve seen firsthand how classroom censorship affects students and educators alike, particularly those who are LGBTQ.
Exposure to diverse perspectives sets students up for success as future leaders in the world. It shows them how to treat and interact with people whose experiences are different from their own. It’s especially important at the elementary age. Kids should be able to read books that portray LGBTQ people and families as part of the fabric of our communities, not marginalized or erased.
Today, I’m amazed at how well LGBTQ kids are learning to navigate the world at such an early age — far younger than I was when I finally started figuring it out. I have a 14-year-old nephew who recently transitioned, and another child in the family came out as non-binary at age 12. Increasing representation of diverse voices in our books and classrooms helps build students’ confidence as they discover who they are.
As educators and students confront a continuing spate of classroom and library censorship efforts, it’s important to remain open and be kind to one another — even as parents keep showing up at school board meetings to yell about books. Instead of attacking others and pointing fingers, we should approach this issue from the base assumption that everybody wants the best for their kids. We must come together and try to find a middle ground that doesn’t shortchange a student’s education or harm LGBTQ students and educators.
The reason that I do the work that I do is because of what I learned in school. I grew up in New York and I was fortunate enough to have a program in junior high school called Council for Unity. It was a group of civically engaged young people learning about racism, conflict resolution, how to be vulnerable and share their life experience with their peers. We had a school field trip to the GMHC, an organization that taught me about the work of ACT UP — an activist group that was started in the 1980s to address the AIDS crisis. And I just fell in love with the idea that someone could use their individual power to change society. It was a profound realization for me — a moment of light that inspired me to continue a career in advocacy and volunteer work helping the LGBTQ community. That’s what led me to Equality Texas.
It’s not surprising that the majority of the books lawmakers are trying to ban and remove from libraries are books that center the voices of LGBTQ people or Black and Brown people.
Over the course of the 2021 legislative year, we had the most anti-LGBTQ pieces of legislation filed in Texas in the history of the United States. Although only one of those bills passed, the harmful narratives and manufactured moral panics that came with them are living on in school board meetings, where LGBTQ students are seeing their very humanity up for debate by those who are charged with their safety and education and in schools where books and symbols of support are being removed from classrooms — creating hostile school climates for young people. As a direct result, we started getting calls from all over Texas about escalating bullying, increased harassment and violence, and even the removal of safe space stickers and flags or posters. Since January 1, 2021, the Trevor Project has received close to 25,000 calls, texts or emails from young Texans in crisis.
Credit: Will Martinez
Over the course of the 2021 legislative year, we had the most anti-LGBTQ pieces of legislation filed in Texas in the history of the United States.
It’s not surprising that the majority of the books lawmakers are trying to ban and remove from libraries are books that center the voices of LGBTQ people or Black and Brown people. I remember what it’s like to not see people like you in your textbooks, and to see homophobia from teachers, administrators, and peers. It added to a sense of fear about coming out, even though I already knew who I was by junior high. Going to the library was a joyous experience because I could find those stories I didn’t always have access to in the classroom — stories of LGBTQ people, of first or second generation immigrants like myself and my family. Seeing positive representations of people who looked like me thriving and creating families let me know that there was hope.
Inclusivity in the classroom is good for all students. It allows students to put themselves in the shoes of somebody with a different experience, fostering empathy and compassion. It gives LGBTQ students a sense of power and worthiness. Most importantly, it tells them that their stories matter.
Read moreabout students and teachers fighting classroom censorship.
The Gambia:Fourth Review under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement, Request for a Waiver of Nonobservance and Modification of a Performance Criterion, and Financing Assurances Review - Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for The Gambia
Published June 27, 2022 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
As classroom censorship bills sweep state legislatures, schools are removingbooks by and about LGBTQ people, BIPOC, and other marginalized groups from curriculums and libraries at an unprecedented rate. This year, more than 111 bills aiming to limit discussions about race and gender in the classroom have been passed or introduced in state legislatures. These efforts effectively erase voices, histories and lived experiences from students’ K-12 education.
In honor of Pride month, three LGBTQ rights advocates share how the recent surge of book bans and classroom censorship bills impact their work, and how they affect the students and teachers whose identities are under attack.
Credit: Maddie McGarvey
Jared Fox (he/him)
Director, Strategic Projects at Cleveland School District in Ohio and Founder at Iris Solutions
Books are incredibly powerful, and the fact that people are trying to ban them just speaks to that. Through books, we can see ourselves and the world around us — as Rudine Sims Bishop mentions, as a mirror, a window, or a sliding glass door allowing us to step into a different world.
As an English teacher, I tried to find books for the classroom that reflected the lived experiences of my students, whether they’re queer or not. I want them to see that they matter, not just in my eyes but in the words on the page. There’s something meaningful about seeing your experience published and bound in a spine.
There’s a fear that reading books with LGBTQ characters will make students gay. But I grew up reading about straight characters, with heterosexual parents, and somehow I ended up gay in this world. So if reading books is supposed to determine your sexual orientation, that woefully failed in my case.
Reading books with LGBTQ characters is important for everybody. Students are going to be better off in the world because of it. Books can expose readers to identities beyond the scope of people they know in their immediate lives — queer people with disabilities, queer people who are immigrants, queer people who wear a hijab — thereby building empathy and understanding of experiences different from their own.
When queer students are denied access to these stories, they lose a piece of their humanity.
For queer students, it validates their existence. When a community says a book is being banned from the library because of its LGBTQ themes, it’s telling students “there’s something wrong with you, there’s something that needs to be legislated or challenged, there’s something about you that is up for debate, that shouldn’t even be in a book.” It tells LGBTQ students they don’t even deserve to be on the shelf — literally and metaphorically. That can be very harmful to students’ self-esteem and the way they see themselves in the world. When queer students are denied access to these stories, they lose a piece of their humanity.
It’s also important to note that many of the books that are banned are also by authors of color, which shows our desire as a society to silence the voices of people of color. It’s yet another example of white supremacy at work. We cannot separate the work of LGBTQ equality from the work of anti-racism because the struggles are so closely intertwined. When we are working towards a better future for LGBTQ folks, we’re working towards a better future for people of color, too. And I think that’s important.
Credit: Maddie McGarvey
Credit: Hannah Yoon
Tiffany Wright (she/her)
Graduate Program Coordinator, Leadership for Teaching and Learning & Interim Chair of the Department of Educational Foundations at Millersville University in Pennsylvania
As a mother to a seventh-grader and a member of university faculty, I’ve seen firsthand how classroom censorship affects students and educators alike, particularly those who are LGBTQ. Teachers are worried they could lose their jobs if they teach books about race and gender, which shortcuts their efficacy as educators as well as their sense of personal well-being. And I can’t imagine it’s easy for young people to witness their own identity and existence being erased from school curricula.
Representation is so, so important. I know what it’s like to grow up unable to see yourself reflected in books or other parts of society and culture. During my childhood in the 1980s, I never saw a book reflecting experiences and identities like my own. It wasn’t until college that I found LGBTQ voices in literature — and even then, I had to seek it out. I think I would have had a very different experience growing up if I had been exposed to LGBTQ voices earlier in my education. For example, maybe I wouldn’t have had to go through adolescence twice — before and after coming out.
I’ve seen firsthand how classroom censorship affects students and educators alike, particularly those who are LGBTQ.
Exposure to diverse perspectives sets students up for success as future leaders in the world. It shows them how to treat and interact with people whose experiences are different from their own. It’s especially important at the elementary age. Kids should be able to read books that portray LGBTQ people and families as part of the fabric of our communities, not marginalized or erased.
Today, I’m amazed at how well LGBTQ kids are learning to navigate the world at such an early age — far younger than I was when I finally started figuring it out. I have a 14-year-old nephew who recently transitioned, and another child in the family came out as non-binary at age 12. Increasing representation of diverse voices in our books and classrooms helps build students’ confidence as they discover who they are.
As educators and students confront a continuing spate of classroom and library censorship efforts, it’s important to remain open and be kind to one another — even as parents keep showing up at school board meetings to yell about books. Instead of attacking others and pointing fingers, we should approach this issue from the base assumption that everybody wants the best for their kids. We must come together and try to find a middle ground that doesn’t shortchange a student’s education or harm LGBTQ students and educators.
The reason that I do the work that I do is because of what I learned in school. I grew up in New York and I was fortunate enough to have a program in junior high school called Council for Unity. It was a group of civically engaged young people learning about racism, conflict resolution, how to be vulnerable and share their life experience with their peers. We had a school field trip to the GMHC, an organization that taught me about the work of ACT UP — an activist group that was started in the 1980s to address the AIDS crisis. And I just fell in love with the idea that someone could use their individual power to change society. It was a profound realization for me — a moment of light that inspired me to continue a career in advocacy and volunteer work helping the LGBTQ community. That’s what led me to Equality Texas.
It’s not surprising that the majority of the books lawmakers are trying to ban and remove from libraries are books that center the voices of LGBTQ people or Black and Brown people.
Over the course of the 2021 legislative year, we had the most anti-LGBTQ pieces of legislation filed in Texas in the history of the United States. Although only one of those bills passed, the harmful narratives and manufactured moral panics that came with them are living on in school board meetings, where LGBTQ students are seeing their very humanity up for debate by those who are charged with their safety and education and in schools where books and symbols of support are being removed from classrooms — creating hostile school climates for young people. As a direct result, we started getting calls from all over Texas about escalating bullying, increased harassment and violence, and even the removal of safe space stickers and flags or posters. Since January 1, 2021, the Trevor Project has received close to 25,000 calls, texts or emails from young Texans in crisis.
Credit: Will Martinez
Over the course of the 2021 legislative year, we had the most anti-LGBTQ pieces of legislation filed in Texas in the history of the United States.
It’s not surprising that the majority of the books lawmakers are trying to ban and remove from libraries are books that center the voices of LGBTQ people or Black and Brown people. I remember what it’s like to not see people like you in your textbooks, and to see homophobia from teachers, administrators, and peers. It added to a sense of fear about coming out, even though I already knew who I was by junior high. Going to the library was a joyous experience because I could find those stories I didn’t always have access to in the classroom — stories of LGBTQ people, of first or second generation immigrants like myself and my family. Seeing positive representations of people who looked like me thriving and creating families let me know that there was hope.
Inclusivity in the classroom is good for all students. It allows students to put themselves in the shoes of somebody with a different experience, fostering empathy and compassion. It gives LGBTQ students a sense of power and worthiness. Most importantly, it tells them that their stories matter.
Read moreabout students and teachers fighting classroom censorship.
Guinea-Bissau:2022 Article IV Consultation and Third Review under the Staff-Monitored Program; Press Release; and Statement by the Executive Director for Guinea-Bissau
Published June 27, 2022 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
Argentina:First Review under the Extended Arrangement under the Extended Fund Facility, Request for Modification of Performance Criteria, and Financing Assurances Review
Published June 24, 2022 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
With Roe Overturned, What Comes Next for Abortion Rights?
The Supreme Court’s ruling today, which overturned Roe v. Wade, is nothing less than a shameful, sweeping, politically-driven decision that will have life-altering, and indeed, life-threatening consequences for women and other people who can become pregnant. The devastation of this moment and how it will erode so many of our fundamental rights cannot be underestimated.
Today’s decision revokes the federal constitutional right to abortion, and with it our agency over our lives and futures. As a result of this decision, half the states are expected to ban abortion.
This is an outrageous attack on women’s rights and the bodily autonomy of everyone who can become pregnant, and the effects will be immediate and far reaching. Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy and give birth against their will has devastating impacts, derailing their life, education, and career plans, and assigning them to a future they never wanted or envisioned for themselves.
As bad as today is, this is just the beginning. Extremists have made it clear they won’t be content until abortion is banned nationwide. And they won’t stop with abortion either. The same extremists seeking to control the bodies of pregnant people are coming for our rights to access birth control and gender-affirming health care, to marry who we love, and to vote. But the ACLU has been fighting for our fundamental rights since before Roe v. Wade was decided, and we are not backing down now — or ever. The ACLU and our supporters have been preparing for this moment.
What is the Mississippi abortion ban, and how did we get here?
The state of Mississippi used Dobbs to issue a direct invitation to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. The case was brought on behalf of the last abortion clinic in Mississippi by the Center for Reproductive Rights, and it challenged a state law banning abortion after 15 weeks, in plain violation of Roe. The state asked the court not just to uphold the 15-week ban, but to reconsider the constitutionality of abortion entirely and to declare that the Constitution does not protect the right to abortion at all. That is precisely what the court ruled today.
What happens when abortion is banned?
Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy against their will has life-altering consequences, including enduring serious health risks from continued pregnancy and childbirth, making it harder to escape poverty, derailing one’s education, career, and life plans, and making it more difficult to leave an abusive partner. This decision will also lead to miscarriages being subject to suspicion, investigation, and arrest, and patients and doctors being thrown in jail.
These burdens will disproportionately fall on women of color, those struggling to make ends meet, young people, immigrants, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ communities.
Today’s ruling will also have deadly consequences, with the harm falling hardest on Black women and other people of color who already face a maternal mortality crisis that is most severe in the same states that are determined to ban abortion. In fact, Black women are three times more likely than white women to die during childbirth or shortly thereafter. If abortion is banned nationwide, pregnancy-related deaths are estimated to increase by 21 percent nationwide, and 33 percent among Black women.
What comes next for abortion rights?
Without the federal right to abortion, about half the states are expected to ban abortion in the near future. Some of these laws will take effect immediately, some will require additional action to put the law into effect, and some states will pass new laws.
This didn’t happen overnight. It has been part of a decades-long project to take away a right upon which people have relied for half a century. Anti-abortion politicians have spent decades enacting a patchwork of abortion bans at the state level that pushed abortion out of reach and laid a foundation for the moment we find ourselves in now: when they can ban abortion throughout wide swaths of the country. But we know they will not stop there. Today’s decision brings anti-abortion politicians one step closer to their ultimate goal of outlawing abortion nationwide.
How can we channel our anger into action?
Everyone deserves the dignity and power to decide for themselves if and when they have a child. Those who are trying to take away our basic rights are counting on our silence. We cannot afford to stay quiet when our rights and our freedoms are on the line, and we won’t.
This is a moment of crisis, but we are not powerless. Abortion access is literally on the ballot this year, and we must vote like our rights depend on it — because they do.
With the federal constitutional right to abortion gone, state constitutional rights are more important than ever. In Michigan and Vermont, efforts are underway to enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in their state constitutions.
Conversely, proposed state constitutional amendments to take away abortion rights are on the ballot in Kansas this August, and in Kentucky this November. We cannot let those measures succeed.
We can make our voices heard by taking to the streets. Protests and actions are taking place across the country, and you can locate events in your state here. You can join these efforts and sign up for alerts from the ACLU by texting FIGHTBACK to 826-23 for more actions and updates on the crucial work ahead.*
You can also help secure abortion access for those who need it most by donating to abortion funds that help people access critical care, and by donating to the ACLU.
Finally, you can help fight the stigma of abortion by sharing your stories and talking about how abortion access has changed your life. Talk to your friends, family, and neighbors about why abortion access is essential.
It is up to us — the overwhelming majority of Americans who support abortion access — to come together and fight for a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies and futures. We are joining forces with partners and working to mobilize folks in every corner of the country to get involved in the fight for bodily autonomy.
The ACLU will continue to do everything in our power to ensure all people can access the care they need, when they need it. We are fighting for our rights everywhere: in the courts, in Congress and state legislatures, in the streets, and at the ballot box. Politicians don’t get the last word. We do.
*By texting FIGHTBACK to 826-23 you are agreeing to receive phone calls and texts (including automated recurring text messages) from the ACLU and its state affiliates at the contacts provided. Message & Data Rates May Apply. Text STOP to opt out of automated texts. Privacy statement.
With Roe Overturned, What Comes Next for Abortion Rights?
The Supreme Court’s ruling today, which overturned Roe v. Wade, is nothing less than a shameful, sweeping, politically-driven decision that will have life-altering, and indeed, life-threatening consequences for women and other people who can become pregnant. The devastation of this moment and how it will erode so many of our fundamental rights cannot be underestimated.
Today’s decision revokes the federal constitutional right to abortion, and with it our agency over our lives and futures. As a result of this decision, half the states are expected to ban abortion.
This is an outrageous attack on women’s rights and the bodily autonomy of everyone who can become pregnant, and the effects will be immediate and far reaching. Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy and give birth against their will has devastating impacts, derailing their life, education, and career plans, and assigning them to a future they never wanted or envisioned for themselves.
As bad as today is, this is just the beginning. Extremists have made it clear they won’t be content until abortion is banned nationwide. And they won’t stop with abortion either. The same extremists seeking to control the bodies of pregnant people are coming for our rights to access birth control and gender-affirming health care, to marry who we love, and to vote. But the ACLU has been fighting for our fundamental rights since before Roe v. Wade was decided, and we are not backing down now — or ever. The ACLU and our supporters have been preparing for this moment.
What is the Mississippi abortion ban, and how did we get here?
The state of Mississippi used Dobbs to issue a direct invitation to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. The case was brought on behalf of the last abortion clinic in Mississippi by the Center for Reproductive Rights, and it challenged a state law banning abortion after 15 weeks, in plain violation of Roe. The state asked the court not just to uphold the 15-week ban, but to reconsider the constitutionality of abortion entirely and to declare that the Constitution does not protect the right to abortion at all. That is precisely what the court ruled today.
What happens when abortion is banned?
Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy against their will has life-altering consequences, including enduring serious health risks from continued pregnancy and childbirth, making it harder to escape poverty, derailing one’s education, career, and life plans, and making it more difficult to leave an abusive partner. This decision will also lead to miscarriages being subject to suspicion, investigation, and arrest, and patients and doctors being thrown in jail.
These burdens will disproportionately fall on women of color, those struggling to make ends meet, young people, immigrants, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ communities.
Today’s ruling will also have deadly consequences, with the harm falling hardest on Black women and other people of color who already face a maternal mortality crisis that is most severe in the same states that are determined to ban abortion. In fact, Black women are three times more likely than white women to die during childbirth or shortly thereafter. If abortion is banned nationwide, pregnancy-related deaths are estimated to increase by 21 percent nationwide, and 33 percent among Black women.
What comes next for abortion rights?
Without the federal right to abortion, about half the states are expected to ban abortion in the near future. Some of these laws will take effect immediately, some will require additional action to put the law into effect, and some states will pass new laws.
This didn’t happen overnight. It has been part of a decades-long project to take away a right upon which people have relied for half a century. Anti-abortion politicians have spent decades enacting a patchwork of abortion bans at the state level that pushed abortion out of reach and laid a foundation for the moment we find ourselves in now: when they can ban abortion throughout wide swaths of the country. But we know they will not stop there. Today’s decision brings anti-abortion politicians one step closer to their ultimate goal of outlawing abortion nationwide.
How can we channel our anger into action?
Everyone deserves the dignity and power to decide for themselves if and when they have a child. Those who are trying to take away our basic rights are counting on our silence. We cannot afford to stay quiet when our rights and our freedoms are on the line, and we won’t.
This is a moment of crisis, but we are not powerless. Abortion access is literally on the ballot this year, and we must vote like our rights depend on it — because they do.
With the federal constitutional right to abortion gone, state constitutional rights are more important than ever. In Michigan and Vermont, efforts are underway to enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in their state constitutions.
Conversely, proposed state constitutional amendments to take away abortion rights are on the ballot in Kansas this August, and in Kentucky this November. We cannot let those measures succeed.
We can make our voices heard by taking to the streets. Protests and actions are taking place across the country, and you can locate events in your state here. You can join these efforts and sign up for alerts from the ACLU by texting FIGHTBACK to 826-23 for more actions and updates on the crucial work ahead.*
You can also help secure abortion access for those who need it most by donating to abortion funds that help people access critical care, and by donating to the ACLU.
Finally, you can help fight the stigma of abortion by sharing your stories and talking about how abortion access has changed your life. Talk to your friends, family, and neighbors about why abortion access is essential.
It is up to us — the overwhelming majority of Americans who support abortion access — to come together and fight for a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies and futures. We are joining forces with partners and working to mobilize folks in every corner of the country to get involved in the fight for bodily autonomy.
The ACLU will continue to do everything in our power to ensure all people can access the care they need, when they need it. We are fighting for our rights everywhere: in the courts, in Congress and state legislatures, in the streets, and at the ballot box. Politicians don’t get the last word. We do.
*By texting FIGHTBACK to 826-23 you are agreeing to receive phone calls and texts (including automated recurring text messages) from the ACLU and its state affiliates at the contacts provided. Message & Data Rates May Apply. Text STOP to opt out of automated texts. Privacy statement.
Supreme Court Ruling Rejects the Promise of Miranda Rights
For more than half a century, nearly every American with a television has been able to recite the words that, under the Constitution, protect their right not to incriminate themselves under government interrogation. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can (and will) be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to the presence of an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you prior to any questioning.” These Miranda warnings, mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court in that eponymous 1966 case litigated by the ACLU, form part of the very fabric of law enforcement’s relationship with the public.
Today, in Vega v. Tekoh, the court backtracked substantially on its Miranda promise. In Vega, the court held 6-3 (over an excellent dissent by Justice Elena Kagan) that an individual who is denied Miranda warnings and whose compelled statements are introduced against them in a criminal trial cannot sue the police officer who violated their rights, even where a criminal jury finds them not guilty of any crime. By denying people whose rights are violated the ability to seek redress under our country’s most important civil rights statute, the court has further widened the gap between the guarantees found in the Bill of Rights and the people’s ability to hold government officials accountable for violating them.
Last April, the ACLU and the Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in support of Terence Tekoh, who had been subjected to an illegal interrogation. At trial, Tekoh testified that he was simply doing his job as a Certified Nursing Assistant when Carlos Vega, a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy, isolated him in a small, windowless room and refused others’ entry. Vega then proceeded to interrogate Tekoh, alleging that he had molested a patient while transporting her. Vega threatened Tekoh with violence, flashing his gun. He threatened Tekoh, an immigrant, that he and his family members would face deportation to the country they had fled in fear of persecution, and called him a racial slur.
Again, according to Tekoh, Vega would not permit him to leave the room, and ignored Tekoh’s pleas to see a lawyer or talk to his coworkers and supervisors. Tekoh ultimately extracted a false letter of apology from Vega that he dictated to him.
These facts are shocking — and the ACLU’s brief urged the Supreme Court to hold that, at least where an officer so blatantly violates an individual’s Miranda rights and the statements are introduced in a criminal trial, the officer can be sued under federal law. But the court’s decision today says that these facts, or any others, don’t matter at all. Even though the court has previously said that the introduction of an un-Mirandized statement at trial is a constitutional violation, in Vega it has announced that a Miranda violation is not a violation of a constitutional right, but only of a prophylactic constitutional rule that does not give rise to damages — no matter what.
In closing her dissent, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Kagan lays out the consequences of the court’s decision:
“Today, the Court strips individuals of the ability to seek a remedy for violations of the right recognized in Miranda. The majority observes that defendants may still seek ‘the suppression at trial of statements obtained’ in violation of Miranda’s procedures. But sometimes, such a statement will not be suppressed. And sometimes, as a result, a defendant will be wrongly convicted and spend years in prison. He may succeed, on appeal or in habeas, in getting the conviction reversed. But then, what remedy does he have for all the harm he has suffered? The point of § 1983 is to provide such redress—because a remedy ‘is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees.’ The majority here, as elsewhere, injures the right by denying the remedy.”
The dissent has it exactly right. While the court’s decision does not as a formal matter reduce the police officer’s obligation to issue Miranda warnings — or what individuals in police custody should do or say (or not do and not say) — it cuts off a critical means by which people whose rights have been violated can actually vindicate the promise of those rights. In that sense, it’s a sad day for Miranda, the Bill of Rights, and the most basic conception of accountability.
Supreme Court Ruling Rejects the Promise of Miranda Rights
For more than half a century, nearly every American with a television has been able to recite the words that, under the Constitution, protect their right not to incriminate themselves under government interrogation. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can (and will) be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to the presence of an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you prior to any questioning.” These Miranda warnings, mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court in that eponymous 1966 case litigated by the ACLU, form part of the very fabric of law enforcement’s relationship with the public.
Today, in Vega v. Tekoh, the court backtracked substantially on its Miranda promise. In Vega, the court held 6-3 (over an excellent dissent by Justice Elena Kagan) that an individual who is denied Miranda warnings and whose compelled statements are introduced against them in a criminal trial cannot sue the police officer who violated their rights, even where a criminal jury finds them not guilty of any crime. By denying people whose rights are violated the ability to seek redress under our country’s most important civil rights statute, the court has further widened the gap between the guarantees found in the Bill of Rights and the people’s ability to hold government officials accountable for violating them.
Last April, the ACLU and the Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in support of Terence Tekoh, who had been subjected to an illegal interrogation. At trial, Tekoh testified that he was simply doing his job as a Certified Nursing Assistant when Carlos Vega, a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy, isolated him in a small, windowless room and refused others’ entry. Vega then proceeded to interrogate Tekoh, alleging that he had molested a patient while transporting her. Vega threatened Tekoh with violence, flashing his gun. He threatened Tekoh, an immigrant, that he and his family members would face deportation to the country they had fled in fear of persecution, and called him a racial slur.
Again, according to Tekoh, Vega would not permit him to leave the room, and ignored Tekoh’s pleas to see a lawyer or talk to his coworkers and supervisors. Tekoh ultimately extracted a false letter of apology from Vega that he dictated to him.
These facts are shocking — and the ACLU’s brief urged the Supreme Court to hold that, at least where an officer so blatantly violates an individual’s Miranda rights and the statements are introduced in a criminal trial, the officer can be sued under federal law. But the court’s decision today says that these facts, or any others, don’t matter at all. Even though the court has previously said that the introduction of an un-Mirandized statement at trial is a constitutional violation, in Vega it has announced that a Miranda violation is not a violation of a constitutional right, but only of a prophylactic constitutional rule that does not give rise to damages — no matter what.
In closing her dissent, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Kagan lays out the consequences of the court’s decision:
“Today, the Court strips individuals of the ability to seek a remedy for violations of the right recognized in Miranda. The majority observes that defendants may still seek ‘the suppression at trial of statements obtained’ in violation of Miranda’s procedures. But sometimes, such a statement will not be suppressed. And sometimes, as a result, a defendant will be wrongly convicted and spend years in prison. He may succeed, on appeal or in habeas, in getting the conviction reversed. But then, what remedy does he have for all the harm he has suffered? The point of § 1983 is to provide such redress—because a remedy ‘is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees.’ The majority here, as elsewhere, injures the right by denying the remedy.”
The dissent has it exactly right. While the court’s decision does not as a formal matter reduce the police officer’s obligation to issue Miranda warnings — or what individuals in police custody should do or say (or not do and not say) — it cuts off a critical means by which people whose rights have been violated can actually vindicate the promise of those rights. In that sense, it’s a sad day for Miranda, the Bill of Rights, and the most basic conception of accountability.
Republic of Uzbekistan: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Uzbekistan
Published June 22, 2022 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
Without Access to Counsel, Detained Immigrants Face Increased Risks of Prolonged Detention and Unlawful Deportation
In January 2022, Gabino Medina, who was held at an U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in Seneca County, Ohio, tried to reach me and his immigration attorney several times, but his calls wouldn’t go through. Gabino informed facility officials that he was having issues with his phone account, but was told not to worry — that he would soon be transferred to another facility and his account would be up and running again soon. A few days later, I finally received a call from Gabino. This time, he was in Mexico.
After preventing Gabino from speaking with me and his immigration attorney, the facility quietly sent him on a flight to a country he had not lived in since he was five. Gabino didn’t discover that he was going to be deported until he landed in Mexico, far from all of his friends and family.
Research shows that legal representation can make an enormous difference in the outcome of detained immigrants’ cases.
Gabino had a variety of viable legal defenses to removal, all of which were frustrated by his inability to access counsel. Had Gabino not been denied his legal right to speak with his attorneys, he could still be in the United States.
Unfortunately, Gabino’s story is not unique. The Ohio ICE detention facility where Gabino was detained prevents people from communicating with their attorneys by design. The facility doesn’t allow attorneys to schedule phone calls with clients. When attorneys call the facility, they are told that staff will relay a message to their clients to call them back. It is unclear when and how consistently messages are delivered to clients, and even when they are, detained immigrants can only make costly phone calls that are recorded and monitored.
A recent ACLU research report, “No Fighting Chance: ICE’s Denial of Access to Counsel in U.S. Immigration Detention Centers,” documents pervasive barriers to counsel in ICE detention facilities across the country, where countless people, like Gabino, struggle to exercise their basic rights.
Research shows that legal representation can make an enormous difference in the outcome of detained immigrants’ cases. Detained immigrants with legal representation are 10 times more likely to win their immigration cases compared to those who lack counsel, and are seven times more likely to be released from custody than those without counsel. Yet if they can’t actually communicate with attorneys, their constitutional right to due process is rendered meaningless.
When people in ICE detention cannot reliably communicate with their attorneys, they are left to cope with labyrinthine immigration laws — dubbed by a court and scholars as “second only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity” –– and other complicated laws defining the rights of people detained on their own. Coupled with frequent language barriers and unfamiliarity with the U.S. legal system, navigating their cases without support can be nearly impossible.
AP Photo/Chris Carlson
Access to counsel — both the initial step of being able to retain counsel, and the subsequent step of being able to communicate with counsel –– serves as a bulwark against a system where people in ICE detention do not even have a fair chance to assert the rights they are guaranteed under the law.
In examining access-to-counsel conditions at 173 (out of approximately 192) ICE detention facilities across the country, we found almost every method of communication between detained people and their attorneys is severely broken:
Facility information: At more than 40 detention facilities, or 20 percent of those called by our researchers, no one ever picked up the phone or operators refused to answer basic questions about attorney access.
Phone calls:
At least 58 ICE detention facilities do not allow attorneys to schedule phone calls with a detained client at a certain date and time when the facility will make the client available for the call, preventing both routine and time-sensitive communications necessary to representation.
Detained immigrants must pay to make outgoing phone calls to counsel at approximately 85 percent of surveyed detention facilities, and the cost is often prohibitively expensive given that many detained immigrants are indigent.
Video teleconferencing: It is unclear how many ICE detention facilities actually provide legal video teleconferencing (VTC). Of the 68 detention facilities that reported availability of legal videoconferencing, only 12 of these facilities had information available on ICE’s website.
A-Number Requirement: Approximately 68 percent (38 of 56) of the facilities for which we received attorney survey responses for this question have required attorneys at some point to provide an alien number (A-Number) to communicate with detained immigrants. Yet attorneys who contact a client or potential client for the first time are unlikely to know the individual’s A-Number, and this practice violates ICE’s own detention standards.
Legal mail: At 11 facilities, attorneys reported that delayed deliveries of legal mail had caused them to continuously request extensions for deadlines from the court, to miss key filing deadlines, or that they had observed pro se detained immigrants missing deadlines because of difficulties with the mail system.
Email/electronic messaging: Of the 173 facilities for which we have information, fewer than one in four (24.3 percent) facilities provided some sort of electronic mail or messaging access to detained people.
In-person legal visits:
Eleven ICE detention facilities reported that they do not allow any in-person legal visits at all, despite ICE’s claim that “in-person contact visits remain available at the request of the legal representative” in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Attorneys at nearly half (20 out of 42) of facilities for which we received attorney survey responses to this question reported arbitrary delays or denial of access to their clients at the facility.
Attorney respondents at several facilities reported that in-person visits do not take place in confidential settings, impeding clients’ ability to share sensitive details important to their cases and destroying the attorney-client privilege.
These figures and percentages translate to serious and entirely avoidable consequences for detained immigrants seeking to exercise their rights. As an attorney at South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall, Texas reported, “[T]he phone lines are horrible! They have a lot of static and you can barely hear the client, you have to tell them to yell into the phone which is bad because they are not able to have a somewhat quiet conversation with you with all the other detainees in the room with them.”
Lack of access to confidential, private meeting spaces has devastating effects on attorney-client privilege. As an attorney with clients at Adelanto ICE Processing Center in California reported, “It is incredibly difficult to gain clients’ trust and discuss their trauma and fears when guards are walking back and forth and looking in the windows … It creates an atmosphere of hostility and fear.”
At more than 40 ICE detention facilities called, no one ever picked up the phone or operators refused to answer basic questions about attorney access.
By failing to provide privacy for detained clients so that they can safely share their experiences with persecution and violence which caused them to flee and seek shelter in the U.S., ICE ensures they truly have no chance to vindicate their right to asylum under U.S. law.
The barriers to access to counsel in ICE detention facilities disproportionately affect vulnerable groups. Older adults (age 55+) in immigration detention are especially vulnerable to abuse and are more likely to have serious medical needs, and as a result, would especially benefit from legal advocacy. For example, in the past two years since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, older adults in immigration detention have been among the most likely individuals for whom immigration detention was especially dangerous, and potentially a death sentence. Nineteen of the 41 people (approximately 46 percent) who have died in ICE custody since fiscal year 2018 were over the age of 50, a stark reminder of the vulnerability of older adults in detention.
ICE detention facilities are notorious for abuse and neglect. People detained in these facilities deserve access to counsel so that they stand a fighting chance of returning to their homes in the U.S. or starting a new life. Ultimately, denying people communication with or access to attorneys increases the likelihood that they will be detained for prolonged periods or deported in violation of their constitutional rights, causing additional and needless suffering and heightening the risks that they will face serious injuries or death while detained or after deportation.
That’s why the ACLU is urging the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to phase out the immigration detention system and invest in community-based social services as alternatives to detention. In the meantime, DHS and ICE must ensure that everyone in ICE detention facilities across the country can reliably contact their attorneys across different methods of communication and visitation.
