Burundi: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Burundi
Published July 29, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Friday, 29 July 2022
Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Technical Assistance Report on Government Finance Statistics Mission (October 4-29, 2021)
Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Technical Assistance Report on Government Finance Statistics Mission (October 4-29, 2021)
Published July 29, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 29, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Sierra Leone: 2022 Article IV Consultation and Fifth Review under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement, Requests for Waivers of Nonobservance of Performance Criteria, Modifications of Performance Criteria, and Financing Assurance Review-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone: 2022 Article IV Consultation and Fifth Review under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement, Requests for Waivers of Nonobservance of Performance Criteria, Modifications of Performance Criteria, and Financing Assurance Review-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Sierra Leone
Published July 29, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 29, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Eastern Caribbean Currency Union: Selected Issues
Eastern Caribbean Currency Union: Selected Issues
Published July 29, 2022 at 06:00PM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 29, 2022 at 06:00PM
Read more at imf.org
Eastern Caribbean Currency Union: 2022 Article IV Consultation with Member Countries on Common Policies of the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union
Eastern Caribbean Currency Union: 2022 Article IV Consultation with Member Countries on Common Policies of the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union
Published July 29, 2022 at 06:00PM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 29, 2022 at 06:00PM
Read more at imf.org
Thursday, 28 July 2022
Republic of Lithuania: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Republic of Lithuania: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published July 28, 2022 at 09:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 28, 2022 at 09:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Wednesday, 27 July 2022
Ireland: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note on Oversight of Fintech
Ireland: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note on Oversight of Fintech
Published July 27, 2022 at 04:00PM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 27, 2022 at 04:00PM
Read more at imf.org
Botswana: 2022 Article IV Consultation -Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Botswana
Botswana: 2022 Article IV Consultation -Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Botswana
Published July 27, 2022 at 11:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 27, 2022 at 11:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Tuesday, 26 July 2022
Benin: 2022 Article IV Consultation and Requests for an Extended Arrangement under the Extended Fund Facility and an Arrangement under the Extended Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Benin
Benin: 2022 Article IV Consultation and Requests for an Extended Arrangement under the Extended Fund Facility and an Arrangement under the Extended Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Benin
Published July 27, 2022 at 02:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 27, 2022 at 02:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Paraguay: Technical Assistance Report-Bank Resolution Framework and the Deposit Guarantee Fund
Paraguay: Technical Assistance Report-Bank Resolution Framework and the Deposit Guarantee Fund
Published July 26, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 26, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Arab Republic of Egypt: Ex-Post Evaluation of Exceptional Access Under the 2020 Stand-By Arrangement-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Arab Republic of Egypt
Arab Republic of Egypt: Ex-Post Evaluation of Exceptional Access Under the 2020 Stand-By Arrangement-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Arab Republic of Egypt
Published July 26, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 26, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Friday, 22 July 2022
United Arab Emirates: Technical Assistance Report - Liquidity Management and Forecasting
United Arab Emirates: Technical Assistance Report - Liquidity Management and Forecasting
Published July 22, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 22, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Thursday, 21 July 2022
Singapore: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Singapore
Singapore: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Singapore
Published July 21, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 21, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Cabo Verde: Request for an Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Cabo Verde
Cabo Verde: Request for an Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Cabo Verde
Published July 21, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 21, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
ACLU: Here’s What You Need to Know About the House Passage of the Respect for Marriage Act
Here’s What You Need to Know About the House Passage of the Respect for Marriage Act
Published July 21, 2022 at 10:38PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/YKcHBGn
This week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Respect for Marriage Act. Here’s why that’s a big deal and why — contrary to much of the reporting on it — the measure is actually fairly limited.
Why did the House of Representatives pass the Respect for Marriage Act?
The push behind the Respect for Marriage Act is Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court’s Mississippi abortion decision in which it overturned Roe v. Wade. Justice Thomas urged the court to overturn its rulings establishing a fundamental constitutional right to use contraception, the right of same-sex couples to marry, and a right to form intimate sexual relationships with other consenting adults. With the right to marry potentially at risk, our friends in Congress wanted to do something.
The law garnered the most support ever for a pro-LGBTQ bill in Congress.
The bill passed the House with a large, bipartisan vote of 267-157, making it the most pro-LGBTQ vote in Congressional history. Forty-seven House Republicans voted yes, even in this supremely partisan and bitterly divided Congress, where conservatives are vigorously pushing anti-LGBTQ measures and rhetoric. In contrast, the Equality Act, the LGBTQ movement’s highest priority bill in Congress, which would expressly add LGBTQ people to the Civil Rights Act, passed the House a year ago with a vote of just 224-206, with only three Republicans voting in support. The much larger bipartisan support for the Respect for Marriage Act is a hopeful sign of potential progress to come.
While the bill and bipartisan vote are important, the bill is quite limited.
Here’s why: The Respect for Marriage Act repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which in turn did two things: DOMA barred the federal government from respecting the marriages of same-sex couples who were married under state law, excluding them from federal recognition in over 1,000 contexts, from Social Security survivor benefits to the ability to sponsor a spouse for citizenship to equitable tax treatment. It also said that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution doesn’t require states to respect the marriages of same-sex couples performed by other states.
The Supreme Court struck down the federal recognition portion of DOMA in the 2013 United States v. Windsor decision. After Dobbs, people fear that Windsor could be overturned, so the Respect for Marriage Act fully repeals the federal respect portion of DOMA and replaces it with a requirement of respect by the federal government. It also repeals the Full Faith and Credit portion of DOMA, replacing it with a statement that Full Faith and Credit requires inter-state recognition. Those would both be significant advances that would backstop the Supreme Court’s ruling in Windsor and the inter-state recognition portion of its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges should they be overturned.
The Respect for Marriage Act would not require any state to allow same-sex couples to marry.
If the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell v. Hodges, which established that the fundamental right to marry covers same-sex couples, the Respect for Marriage Act would not stop any state from once again refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The federal government would still be required to respect same-sex couples’ already-existing marriages, as would other states in many circumstances. But a state that wanted to get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples would not violate the Respect for Marriage Act.
Prospects for the Respect for Marriage Act becoming law are unclear.
The second reason that the landmark vote on the Respect for Marriage Act is limited in effect is that it’s not clear that the bill will actually make it out of the Senate given the 60-vote requirement. That would require 10 Republican senators to join all 50 Democratic senators in agreeing to let the bill get to a vote, and then a majority of senators to vote yes. Despite the significant bipartisan support in the House, progress like that in the Senate is still a very steep hill to climb.
The Respect for Marriage Act is important, but Congress needs to do much more.
While Congress debates and votes on the Respect for Marriage Act, the LGBTQ community remains under intense attack in the states. A record number of anti-trans and anti-LGBQ bills were introduced and passed in state legislatures over the past two years. These measures bar trans and non-binary people from access to health care, from updating their identity documents, and from full participation in daily life. They seek to erase trans people from society and to ban schools from talking about the mere existence of LGBTQ people.
Our freedom to marry indeed needs protection from Congress. But we also need to fight against these broader attacks on the LGBTQ community, especially trans and non-binary people. Passing the Equality Act would be a good start. Congress needs to fight as though trans lives depend on its actions, because they do.
Published July 21, 2022 at 10:38PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/YKcHBGn
ACLU: Here’s What You Need to Know About the House Passage of the Respect for Marriage Act
Here’s What You Need to Know About the House Passage of the Respect for Marriage Act
Published July 21, 2022 at 06:08PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/YP0yjTE
This week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Respect for Marriage Act. Here’s why that’s a big deal and why — contrary to much of the reporting on it — the measure is actually fairly limited.
Why did the House of Representatives pass the Respect for Marriage Act?
The push behind the Respect for Marriage Act is Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court’s Mississippi abortion decision in which it overturned Roe v. Wade. Justice Thomas urged the court to overturn its rulings establishing a fundamental constitutional right to use contraception, the right of same-sex couples to marry, and a right to form intimate sexual relationships with other consenting adults. With the right to marry potentially at risk, our friends in Congress wanted to do something.
The law garnered the most support ever for a pro-LGBTQ bill in Congress.
The bill passed the House with a large, bipartisan vote of 267-157, making it the most pro-LGBTQ vote in Congressional history. Forty-seven House Republicans voted yes, even in this supremely partisan and bitterly divided Congress, where conservatives are vigorously pushing anti-LGBTQ measures and rhetoric. In contrast, the Equality Act, the LGBTQ movement’s highest priority bill in Congress, which would expressly add LGBTQ people to the Civil Rights Act, passed the House a year ago with a vote of just 224-206, with only three Republicans voting in support. The much larger bipartisan support for the Respect for Marriage Act is a hopeful sign of potential progress to come.
While the bill and bipartisan vote are important, the bill is quite limited.
Here’s why: The Respect for Marriage Act repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which in turn did two things: DOMA barred the federal government from respecting the marriages of same-sex couples who were married under state law, excluding them from federal recognition in over 1,000 contexts, from Social Security survivor benefits to the ability to sponsor a spouse for citizenship to equitable tax treatment. It also said that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution doesn’t require states to respect the marriages of same-sex couples performed by other states.
The Supreme Court struck down the federal recognition portion of DOMA in the 2013 United States v. Windsor decision. After Dobbs, people fear that Windsor could be overturned, so the Respect for Marriage Act fully repeals the federal respect portion of DOMA and replaces it with a requirement of respect by the federal government. It also repeals the Full Faith and Credit portion of DOMA, replacing it with a statement that Full Faith and Credit requires inter-state recognition. Those would both be significant advances that would backstop the Supreme Court’s ruling in Windsor and the inter-state recognition portion of its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges should they be overturned.
The Respect for Marriage Act would not require any state to allow same-sex couples to marry.
If the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell v. Hodges, which established that the fundamental right to marry covers same-sex couples, the Respect for Marriage Act would not stop any state from once again refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The federal government would still be required to respect same-sex couples’ already-existing marriages, as would other states in many circumstances. But a state that wanted to get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples would not violate the Respect for Marriage Act.
Prospects for the Respect for Marriage Act becoming law are unclear.
The second reason that the landmark vote on the Respect for Marriage Act is limited in effect is that it’s not clear that the bill will actually make it out of the Senate given the 60-vote requirement. That would require 10 Republican senators to join all 50 Democratic senators in agreeing to let the bill get to a vote, and then a majority of senators to vote yes. Despite the significant bipartisan support in the House, progress like that in the Senate is still a very steep hill to climb.
The Respect for Marriage Act is important, but Congress needs to do much more.
While Congress debates and votes on the Respect for Marriage Act, the LGBTQ community remains under intense attack in the states. A record number of anti-trans and anti-LGBQ bills were introduced and passed in state legislatures over the past two years. These measures bar trans and non-binary people from access to health care, from updating their identity documents, and from full participation in daily life. They seek to erase trans people from society and to ban schools from talking about the mere existence of LGBTQ people.
Our freedom to marry indeed needs protection from Congress. But we also need to fight against these broader attacks on the LGBTQ community, especially trans and non-binary people. Passing the Equality Act would be a good start. Congress needs to fight as though trans lives depend on its actions, because they do.
Published July 21, 2022 at 06:08PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/YP0yjTE
Uruguay: Central Bank Transparency Code Review
Uruguay: Central Bank Transparency Code Review
Published July 21, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 21, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Wednesday, 20 July 2022
Germany: Financial System Stability Assessment
Germany: Financial System Stability Assessment
Published July 20, 2022 at 05:02PM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 20, 2022 at 05:02PM
Read more at imf.org
Germany: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Germany
Germany: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Germany
Published July 20, 2022 at 05:00PM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 20, 2022 at 05:00PM
Read more at imf.org
Tuesday, 19 July 2022
Kenya: Third Reviews Under the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility and Under the Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility, and Requests for Modification of Quantitative Performance Criteria, and Waiver of Applicability for Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statements by the Executive Director and by Staff Representative for Kenya
Kenya: Third Reviews Under the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility and Under the Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility, and Requests for Modification of Quantitative Performance Criteria, and Waiver of Applicability for Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statements by the Executive Director and by Staff Representative for Kenya
Published July 19, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 19, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Niger: First Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement and Request for Modification of Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Niger
Niger: First Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement and Request for Modification of Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Niger
Published July 19, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 19, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Somalia: Second and Thirds Reviews Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement and Request for Modification of Performance Criterion, Modification of Performance Criteria, Interim Assistance and Rephasing of Access and Extension of the Arrangement-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Somalia
Somalia: Second and Thirds Reviews Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement and Request for Modification of Performance Criterion, Modification of Performance Criteria, Interim Assistance and Rephasing of Access and Extension of the Arrangement-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Somalia
Published July 19, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 19, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Monday, 18 July 2022
Republic of Congo: First Review under the Three-year Extended Credit Facility Arrangement, Requests for Modification of Performance Criteria, and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Congo
Republic of Congo: First Review under the Three-year Extended Credit Facility Arrangement, Requests for Modification of Performance Criteria, and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Congo
Published July 18, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 18, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Jordan: 2022 Article IV Consultation and Fourth Review Under the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility, Request for Augmentation and Rephasing of Access, and Modification of Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Jordan
Jordan: 2022 Article IV Consultation and Fourth Review Under the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility, Request for Augmentation and Rephasing of Access, and Modification of Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Jordan
Published July 18, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 18, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Friday, 15 July 2022
Ecuador: Fourth and Fifth Reviews under the Extended Arrangement under the Extended Fund Facility, Request for a Waiver of Nonobservance of Performance Criterion, Rephasing of Access, and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Ecuador
Ecuador: Fourth and Fifth Reviews under the Extended Arrangement under the Extended Fund Facility, Request for a Waiver of Nonobservance of Performance Criterion, Rephasing of Access, and Financing Assurances Review-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Ecuador
Published July 15, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 15, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Mauritius: Staff Report for the 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Mauritius: Staff Report for the 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published July 15, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 15, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Wednesday, 13 July 2022
ACLU: Home Care Workers Protect the Civil Liberties of People with Disabilities. They Need Protection, Too
Home Care Workers Protect the Civil Liberties of People with Disabilities. They Need Protection, Too
Published July 13, 2022 at 11:51PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2UnAOXc
At the onset of the pandemic, as most of the country shuttered themselves inside to avoid COVID-19 infection, home health aides remained on the front lines, taking care of our loved ones and risking their lives in the process. These caregivers — the majority of whom are Black and Brown immigrant women — face considerable risks on the job.
Home care workers help people with disabilities and seniors with intimate and vital tasks like bathing, dressing, and eating, making social distancing impossible. Yet, many states’ emergency COVID-19 measures excluded home health aides from their definition of “essential workers,” failing to assure them access to adequate PPE, prompt COVID-19 testing, and vaccines.
And home health aides, like many essential workers, are prone to pandemic-related emotional burnout because they often work alone, isolated from supportive colleagues. Now in the pandemic’s third year, we must urge both federal and state action to ensure that those who care for our loved ones and neighbors are able to stay healthy and safe.
In a survey of home health aides’ experiences during the pandemic, 76% of personal care attendants and 64% of agency-employed home health aides said they could not afford to stay home if they or a family member got sick.
More than 8.6 million older adults and people with disabilities rely on home health aides, and home care remains one of the nation’s fastest growing sectors. But home health aides are among the lowest paid workers, with a median wage of $13.02 per hour, or $27,080 annually for a full time aide. Unsurprisingly, in a survey of home health aides’ experiences during the pandemic, 76 percent of personal care attendants and 64 percent of agency-employed home health aides said they could not afford to stay home if they or a family member got sick, or quarantine if they were exposed to COVID-19. It’s no wonder why 1 in 6 of these workers lives below the federal poverty line.
The safety and dignity of home health aides is inextricably linked with the safety and dignity of those they care for. Assuring higher pay and safer conditions for home health care workers is essential to attracting and retaining high quality caregivers. Government-mandated pay increases can, however, have the unintended consequence of hurting the very communities served by home health aides, because state and federal Medicaid reimbursements are inadequate to cover these higher costs. As a result, an increase in caregivers’ pay can often lead to a decrease in caregivers’ hours — and thus, a decrease in needed support for people with disabilities.
We can and must avoid pitting these communities against one another. Instead, we must consistently couple our advocacy on behalf of home health aides with calls for increased Medicaid funding to ensure in-home care remains affordable.
The physically-strenuous intimate care home care workers provide result in on-the-job injuries at often higher rates than in other industries.
The Build Back Better legislation introduced in Congress last year would have invested $150 billion into the home care workforce and in home and community-based services for people with disabilities. Though far less than the $400 billion originally proposed by President Biden, this funding would have presented a transformative, vital investment in home health aides’ dignity and their clients’ well-being. Now, as the White House and Congress negotiate new legislation, it is crucial that any new budget package expands access to home-based care. The bill should incentivize states to improve coverage under Medicaid, the primary source of funding for such services, and increase funding to allow states to expand home-based services.
If federal legislation is enacted, it will only be a long-overdue first step, and it must not be the last. States can and should take action. Some already are:
- In March 2021, the New Jersey legislature passed a budget that included a home and community-based service worker rate-setting provision, increasing wages.
- In September 2021, Colorado passed a measure that will increase pay for home care workers using federal pandemic relief money.
- In Maine, the governor recently announced that $126 million in MaineCare funds will be allocated as bonuses for home care and community-based workers.
- In New York, the state budget raised home care workers’ pay $3 an hour, but the Fair Pay for Home Care Act would establish even greater protections: a base pay for home health aides of at least 150 percent of the regional minimum wage.
In addition to the immediate dangers of COVID-19, home health aides’ safety and health concerns are distinct and dire.
The physically-strenuous intimate care these workers provide results in on-the-job injuries at often higher rates than in other industries. Nearly half of home health aides have reported being physically and sexually harassed on the job, and they also must contend with the family members of those they care for. And despite reporting higher rates of violence than people in more traditional work settings, home health aides are less able to vindicate their legal rights when violations occur because they are disproportionately non-unionized.
Workplace laws themselves must be reformed to protect this especially vulnerable group. Federal anti-discrimination laws, for instance, apply only to employers with 15 or more employees, while the Fair Labor Standards Act — which provides minimum wage and overtime protections — has loopholes that exclude some home health aides outright, or are open to misinterpretation and abuse. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, along with Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Ben Ray Lujan, sought to correct this injustice by reintroducing the National Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Act in July 2021, which would expand paid sick leave and anti-discrimination protections to home health aides. But the legislation has not progressed in this Congress.
It has never been more crucial to invest in the people who care for us and our loved ones. By increasing wages and pushing states to make home care services affordable, Congress would take a significant step forward in improving home health aides’ financial stability while attracting new workers, remedying a critical shortage in this sector. But we must take even more dramatic action to shore up our caregiving infrastructure — during the pandemic and beyond.
We need you with us to keep fighting
Donate todayPublished July 13, 2022 at 11:51PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2UnAOXc
ACLU: Home Care Workers Protect the Civil Liberties of People with Disabilities. They Need Protection, Too
Home Care Workers Protect the Civil Liberties of People with Disabilities. They Need Protection, Too
Published July 13, 2022 at 07:21PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/rGNTQUC
At the onset of the pandemic, as most of the country shuttered themselves inside to avoid COVID-19 infection, home health aides remained on the front lines, taking care of our loved ones and risking their lives in the process. These caregivers — the majority of whom are Black and Brown immigrant women — face considerable risks on the job.
Home care workers help people with disabilities and seniors with intimate and vital tasks like bathing, dressing, and eating, making social distancing impossible. Yet, many states’ emergency COVID-19 measures excluded home health aides from their definition of “essential workers,” failing to assure them access to adequate PPE, prompt COVID-19 testing, and vaccines.
And home health aides, like many essential workers, are prone to pandemic-related emotional burnout because they often work alone, isolated from supportive colleagues. Now in the pandemic’s third year, we must urge both federal and state action to ensure that those who care for our loved ones and neighbors are able to stay healthy and safe.
In a survey of home health aides’ experiences during the pandemic, 76% of personal care attendants and 64% of agency-employed home health aides said they could not afford to stay home if they or a family member got sick.
More than 8.6 million older adults and people with disabilities rely on home health aides, and home care remains one of the nation’s fastest growing sectors. But home health aides are among the lowest paid workers, with a median wage of $13.02 per hour, or $27,080 annually for a full time aide. Unsurprisingly, in a survey of home health aides’ experiences during the pandemic, 76 percent of personal care attendants and 64 percent of agency-employed home health aides said they could not afford to stay home if they or a family member got sick, or quarantine if they were exposed to COVID-19. It’s no wonder why 1 in 6 of these workers lives below the federal poverty line.
The safety and dignity of home health aides is inextricably linked with the safety and dignity of those they care for. Assuring higher pay and safer conditions for home health care workers is essential to attracting and retaining high quality caregivers. Government-mandated pay increases can, however, have the unintended consequence of hurting the very communities served by home health aides, because state and federal Medicaid reimbursements are inadequate to cover these higher costs. As a result, an increase in caregivers’ pay can often lead to a decrease in caregivers’ hours — and thus, a decrease in needed support for people with disabilities.
We can and must avoid pitting these communities against one another. Instead, we must consistently couple our advocacy on behalf of home health aides with calls for increased Medicaid funding to ensure in-home care remains affordable.
The physically-strenuous intimate care home care workers provide result in on-the-job injuries at often higher rates than in other industries.
The Build Back Better legislation introduced in Congress last year would have invested $150 billion into the home care workforce and in home and community-based services for people with disabilities. Though far less than the $400 billion originally proposed by President Biden, this funding would have presented a transformative, vital investment in home health aides’ dignity and their clients’ well-being. Now, as the White House and Congress negotiate new legislation, it is crucial that any new budget package expands access to home-based care. The bill should incentivize states to improve coverage under Medicaid, the primary source of funding for such services, and increase funding to allow states to expand home-based services.
If federal legislation is enacted, it will only be a long-overdue first step, and it must not be the last. States can and should take action. Some already are:
- In March 2021, the New Jersey legislature passed a budget that included a home and community-based service worker rate-setting provision, increasing wages.
- In September 2021, Colorado passed a measure that will increase pay for home care workers using federal pandemic relief money.
- In Maine, the governor recently announced that $126 million in MaineCare funds will be allocated as bonuses for home care and community-based workers.
- In New York, the state budget raised home care workers’ pay $3 an hour, but the Fair Pay for Home Care Act would establish even greater protections: a base pay for home health aides of at least 150 percent of the regional minimum wage.
In addition to the immediate dangers of COVID-19, home health aides’ safety and health concerns are distinct and dire.
The physically-strenuous intimate care these workers provide results in on-the-job injuries at often higher rates than in other industries. Nearly half of home health aides have reported being physically and sexually harassed on the job, and they also must contend with the family members of those they care for. And despite reporting higher rates of violence than people in more traditional work settings, home health aides are less able to vindicate their legal rights when violations occur because they are disproportionately non-unionized.
Workplace laws themselves must be reformed to protect this especially vulnerable group. Federal anti-discrimination laws, for instance, apply only to employers with 15 or more employees, while the Fair Labor Standards Act — which provides minimum wage and overtime protections — has loopholes that exclude some home health aides outright, or are open to misinterpretation and abuse. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, along with Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Ben Ray Lujan, sought to correct this injustice by reintroducing the National Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Act in July 2021, which would expand paid sick leave and anti-discrimination protections to home health aides. But the legislation has not progressed in this Congress.
It has never been more crucial to invest in the people who care for us and our loved ones. By increasing wages and pushing states to make home care services affordable, Congress would take a significant step forward in improving home health aides’ financial stability while attracting new workers, remedying a critical shortage in this sector. But we must take even more dramatic action to shore up our caregiving infrastructure — during the pandemic and beyond.
We need you with us to keep fighting
Donate todayPublished July 13, 2022 at 07:21PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/rGNTQUC
Tuesday, 12 July 2022
United States:2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the United States
United States:2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the United States
Published July 13, 2022
Read more at imf.org
Published July 13, 2022
Read more at imf.org
ACLU: Victims of Discrimination Have No Path to Justice Following Supreme Court Decision
Victims of Discrimination Have No Path to Justice Following Supreme Court Decision
Published July 12, 2022 at 09:42PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ZbKYcN3
When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955, our laws did not provide any recourse against the discrimination she faced. In the decades that followed, organizers and civil rights groups won key battles to expand our laws to protect against discrimination for Black people, women, and people with disabilities. Until recently, thanks to the groundwork laid by people like Parks, people who faced discrimination could seek damages for the emotional distress they endured. But the U.S. Supreme Court blocked that avenue for relief in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C, turning its back on our communities and effectively making such discrimination legal.
In its decision, the court guts key civil rights remedies by revoking the right of victims of race, sex, and disability discrimination to recover emotional distress damages — essentially blocking victims from bringing lawsuits at all.
Until recently, people who faced discrimination could seek damages for the emotional distress they endured. But the U.S. Supreme Court blocked that avenue for relief.
Though often excluded from discussions of the court’s radical shift to the right, the egregious impact of this decision cannot be understated. After Cummings, discrimination cases that cannot show economic harm will never see the light of day. So, providers who turn away people with disabilities because they cannot be bothered to provide accommodations, or doctors who are openly racist to patients, would face no consequence for their obvious discrimination.
In its amicus brief the ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the National Women’s Law Center highlighted a number of discrimination cases that would be affected by this decision. In each of these cases, emotional distress damages are the primary tool used to seek justice for victims. In Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, for example, in which a young girl was sexually harassed by her teacher, the injuries required damages only for emotional, not economic, harm. Similarly, in Zeno v. Pine Plains Central School District, in which a Black student suffered racial harassment and assault for more than three years, damages that addressed the psychological harm on the student were the only way to hold the school accountable.
After Cummings, cases like these will be nearly impossible to bring. Here’s what you need to know about this shameful decision.
What happened in this case?
Jane Cummings, who is deaf and legally blind, was denied services from a physical therapist’s office — Premier Rehab Keller — because of her disability. The office refused to provide Cummings with an American Sign Language interpreter at her sessions, although they were required to under federal anti-discrimination laws.
Cummings was forced to find a different physical therapist, but filed a lawsuit against Premier Rehab for violating the anti-discrimination rules in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
In her case, as is the case for many Americans who experience discrimination due to their identity, the lawsuit sought damages for emotional distress. Emotional distress damages are often critical to discrimination cases, compensating victims for lasting harms like anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
What did the court say?
The issue, in this case, was not whether Cummings was discriminated against, but rather what to do in response to the discrimination she faced. The Supreme Court’s answer? Nothing could be done.
For the first time, the court held that emotional distress damages were not recoverable in a private action to enforce anti-discrimination laws. In its argument, the court applied contract law to hold that damages cannot include compensation for emotional suffering since emotional distress damages are not traditionally available in suits of breach of contract.
Despite studies routinely showing that discrimination can cause significant emotional damage, potentially affecting a person’s stress levels, self-esteem, blood pressure, and overall mental health, the court claimed these harms do not warrant a remedy.
What does this mean for victims of discrimination?
The impact of this decision is far reaching. Practically, this decision means that while emotional injury is often the primary, and at times the only, harm caused by discrimination, victims will not be able seek justice.Without emotional distress remedies, many discrimination cases in progress will be thrown out, and future cases will not be taken up by lawyers at all.
While the facts of this case concerned disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act and the ACA, its ruling also applies to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting race discrimination) and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (prohibiting sex discrimination). This means the decision will affect kids in schools, people who experience sexual harassment and abuse, and many other victims of race and sex discrimination.
Cummings not only prevents these individuals from seeking justice, but also leaves them at greater risk under the weakened anti-discrimination laws. In the past, the strength of these laws has relied on the deterrent effect of lawsuits brought by private actors. Now, many victims will be unable to bring a case, making it all the more difficult to hold violators of these laws accountable.
With this decision, key wins fought for by civil rights activists like Rosa Parks are stripped away. Rosa Parks suffered no economic harm from sitting in the back of the bus. She lost no job. The bus still took her where she needed to go. But the injury she suffered — the indignity and stigma of being segregated and relegated to the back — was real. Now, the court has effectively told Rosa Parks, “So what?”
We need you with us to keep fighting
Donate todayPublished July 12, 2022 at 09:42PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ZbKYcN3
ACLU: Victims of Discrimination Have No Path to Justice Following Supreme Court Decision
Victims of Discrimination Have No Path to Justice Following Supreme Court Decision
Published July 12, 2022 at 05:12PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/5WpsPko
When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955, our laws did not provide any recourse against the discrimination she faced. In the decades that followed, organizers and civil rights groups won key battles to expand our laws to protect against discrimination for Black people, women, and people with disabilities. Until recently, thanks to the groundwork laid by people like Parks, people who faced discrimination could seek damages for the emotional distress they endured. But the U.S. Supreme Court blocked that avenue for relief in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C, turning its back on our communities and effectively making such discrimination legal.
In its decision, the court guts key civil rights remedies by revoking the right of victims of race, sex, and disability discrimination to recover emotional distress damages — essentially blocking victims from bringing lawsuits at all.
Until recently, people who faced discrimination could seek damages for the emotional distress they endured. But the U.S. Supreme Court blocked that avenue for relief.
Though often excluded from discussions of the court’s radical shift to the right, the egregious impact of this decision cannot be understated. After Cummings, discrimination cases that cannot show economic harm will never see the light of day. So, providers who turn away people with disabilities because they cannot be bothered to provide accommodations, or doctors who are openly racist to patients, would face no consequence for their obvious discrimination.
In its amicus brief the ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the National Women’s Law Center highlighted a number of discrimination cases that would be affected by this decision. In each of these cases, emotional distress damages are the primary tool used to seek justice for victims. In Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, for example, in which a young girl was sexually harassed by her teacher, the injuries required damages only for emotional, not economic, harm. Similarly, in Zeno v. Pine Plains Central School District, in which a Black student suffered racial harassment and assault for more than three years, damages that addressed the psychological harm on the student were the only way to hold the school accountable.
After Cummings, cases like these will be nearly impossible to bring. Here’s what you need to know about this shameful decision.
What happened in this case?
Jane Cummings, who is deaf and legally blind, was denied services from a physical therapist’s office — Premier Rehab Keller — because of her disability. The office refused to provide Cummings with an American Sign Language interpreter at her sessions, although they were required to under federal anti-discrimination laws.
Cummings was forced to find a different physical therapist, but filed a lawsuit against Premier Rehab for violating the anti-discrimination rules in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
In her case, as is the case for many Americans who experience discrimination due to their identity, the lawsuit sought damages for emotional distress. Emotional distress damages are often critical to discrimination cases, compensating victims for lasting harms like anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
What did the court say?
The issue, in this case, was not whether Cummings was discriminated against, but rather what to do in response to the discrimination she faced. The Supreme Court’s answer? Nothing could be done.
For the first time, the court held that emotional distress damages were not recoverable in a private action to enforce anti-discrimination laws. In its argument, the court applied contract law to hold that damages cannot include compensation for emotional suffering since emotional distress damages are not traditionally available in suits of breach of contract.
Despite studies routinely showing that discrimination can cause significant emotional damage, potentially affecting a person’s stress levels, self-esteem, blood pressure, and overall mental health, the court claimed these harms do not warrant a remedy.
What does this mean for victims of discrimination?
The impact of this decision is far reaching. Practically, this decision means that while emotional injury is often the primary, and at times the only, harm caused by discrimination, victims will not be able seek justice.Without emotional distress remedies, many discrimination cases in progress will be thrown out, and future cases will not be taken up by lawyers at all.
While the facts of this case concerned disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act and the ACA, its ruling also applies to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting race discrimination) and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (prohibiting sex discrimination). This means the decision will affect kids in schools, people who experience sexual harassment and abuse, and many other victims of race and sex discrimination.
Cummings not only prevents these individuals from seeking justice, but also leaves them at greater risk under the weakened anti-discrimination laws. In the past, the strength of these laws has relied on the deterrent effect of lawsuits brought by private actors. Now, many victims will be unable to bring a case, making it all the more difficult to hold violators of these laws accountable.
With this decision, key wins fought for by civil rights activists like Rosa Parks are stripped away. Rosa Parks suffered no economic harm from sitting in the back of the bus. She lost no job. The bus still took her where she needed to go. But the injury she suffered — the indignity and stigma of being segregated and relegated to the back — was real. Now, the court has effectively told Rosa Parks, “So what?”
We need you with us to keep fighting
Donate todayPublished July 12, 2022 at 05:12PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/5WpsPko
Monday, 11 July 2022
North Macedonia:Technical Assistance Report - Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Performance Assessment
North Macedonia:Technical Assistance Report - Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Performance Assessment
Published July 11, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 11, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Friday, 8 July 2022
ACLU: Federal Judge Finds Arizona’s Prison Health Care Is "Plainly Grossly Inadequate" and Unconstitutional
Federal Judge Finds Arizona’s Prison Health Care Is "Plainly Grossly Inadequate" and Unconstitutional
Published July 8, 2022 at 10:04PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/nIOYfvL
A prison sentence should not mean people lose fundamental human rights such as access to health care or humane conditions of confinement. Yet in Arizona prisons, despite a settlement promising to improve conditions, this problem persisted for years. Finally, after almost a decade of broken promises by Arizona state prison officials, U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver ruled on June 30 that the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) systematically violates the constitutional rights of people incarcerated in the state’s prisons by failing to provide them minimally adequate medical and mental health care, and by subjecting them to harsh and degrading conditions in solitary confinement units.
The lawsuit, Jensen v. Shinn, is part of a decade-long struggle to ensure that the nearly 30,000 adults and children in Arizona’s prisons receive the basic health care and minimally adequate conditions to which they are entitled under the Constitution and the law. Plaintiffs in the case are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project, the ACLU of Arizona, Prison Law Office, Arizona Center for Disability Law, and the law firm of Perkins Coie LLP.
The ACLU repeatedly detailed in court filings that preventable suffering and deaths, including deaths by suicide in solitary confinement, were occurring in Arizona’s prisons.
Our lawsuit was originally filed in 2012, and in 2014, prison officials settled the case, promising to improve health care and conditions in isolation. But in the seven years between settling the case and going to trial, we repeatedly detailed in court filings that preventable suffering and deaths, including deaths by suicide in solitary confinement, were occurring in Arizona’s prisons.
Judge Silver’s ruling came after 15 days of trial held in November and December 2021, where we showed that incarcerated people suffer excruciating pain, gruesome permanent injuries, and preventable deaths due to the state’s failure to provide basic health care. The evidence we presented at trial included expert testimony regarding unconstitutional medical and mental health care, the psychological effects of isolation and conditions in isolation units, and inadequate health care staffing.
Judge Silver’s 200-page order finding Arizona prison officials in violation of the Eighth Amendment cited evidence showing that ADCRR has abdicated its responsibility to deliver health care through its merry-go-round of for-profit correctional health care vendors. Judge Silver also described the gratuitous cruelty of isolation units, including the indefinite incarceration in solitary confinement of seriously mentally ill persons and children who were convicted as adults.
Judge Silver’s order finding Arizona prison officials in violation of the Eighth Amendment cited evidence showing that ADCRR has abdicated its responsibility to deliver health care through for-profit correctional health care vendors.
Former prison employees and incarcerated people bravely stepped forward to describe to the court the inadequate health care, the inhumane treatment of people in isolation units, and the falsification of documents and information that prison officials previously provided to the court and attorneys for incarcerated people.
For example, one of our plaintiffs, Kendall Johnson, testified by video with great difficulty from her hospital bed in the women’s prison’s medical unit. Only 37 years old, Ms. Johnson described how she is unable to move her legs and arms, care for herself, read, or barely talk, and passes her time “counting the ceiling tiles” because she is never allowed outside. Although she entered prison as a healthy young woman who was a basketball player, in 2017 she began having numbness in her legs, problems walking, and falling.
Rather than investigate, prison health care staff wrote in Ms. Johnson’s medical records that she was delusional and faking her symptoms. When she finally saw a specialist after several years of notifying prison health care staff, the specialist’s recommendations were ignored. Judge Silver called Ms. Johnson’s testimony “profoundly disturbing” and her lack of medical care “a paradigmatic example of the most callous and inhumane indifference” that caused “unspeakable hardship” to her. Judge Silver described the incompetent medical care provided to another incarcerated person as a “seven-year odyssey of incompetence, cruelty, and eventual death.”
Judge Silver also found that ADCRR overuses isolation, with approximately 9.5 percent of its population in isolation — more than double the national average.
Judge Silver also characterized the trial testimony of an incarcerated person with schizophrenia, and videos shown in court of repeated uses of chemical agents against him while on suicide watch or housed in solitary confinement, as “appalling evidence” that was “nothing short of shocking.”
Judge Silver found that ADCRR overuses isolation, with approximately 9.5 percent of its population in isolation — more than double the national average. She noted that some 200 people who ADCRR did not believe require isolation were, nonetheless, in isolation. Further, Judge Silver found that the conditions in ADCRR detention units were “alarming,” with ADCRR failing to offer people showers, recreation, or even food.
Finally, Judge Silver wrote that ADCRR Director David Shinn’s testimony “made clear that he has adopted a strategy of pretending the problems he knows about do not exist.” When Mr. Shinn testified that the quality of health care for incarcerated people exceeded the health care he and his family received, and that he thought that the health care vendor had done an exceptional job because “only” 1 percent of prisoners infected with COVID-19 had died, there were audible gasps from the courtroom audience. Judge Silver described this testimony as “shocking” and “completely detached from reality,” noting Mr. Shinn’s “strange nonchalance” about the “undisputed failures” in the prison system he directed, and criticizing his “flagrant dereliction” of duty.
Judge Silver has asked both sides to provide her with names of neutral experts she can consult with before issuing a final order to prison officials on how to overhaul their health care and isolation units. Whether the department will finally do its duty under the Constitution is unclear. But just as we have for the last decade, we’ll be watching to make sure department officials follow through, for now, and for good.
We need you with us to keep fighting
Donate todayPublished July 8, 2022 at 10:04PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/nIOYfvL
ACLU: Federal Judge Finds Arizona’s Prison Health Care Is "Plainly Grossly Inadequate" and Unconstitutional
Federal Judge Finds Arizona’s Prison Health Care Is "Plainly Grossly Inadequate" and Unconstitutional
Published July 8, 2022 at 05:34PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/fQAatNg
A prison sentence should not mean people lose fundamental human rights such as access to health care or humane conditions of confinement. Yet in Arizona prisons, despite a settlement promising to improve conditions, this problem persisted for years. Finally, after almost a decade of broken promises by Arizona state prison officials, U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver ruled on June 30 that the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) systematically violates the constitutional rights of people incarcerated in the state’s prisons by failing to provide them minimally adequate medical and mental health care, and by subjecting them to harsh and degrading conditions in solitary confinement units.
The lawsuit, Jensen v. Shinn, is part of a decade-long struggle to ensure that the nearly 30,000 adults and children in Arizona’s prisons receive the basic health care and minimally adequate conditions to which they are entitled under the Constitution and the law. Plaintiffs in the case are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project, the ACLU of Arizona, Prison Law Office, Arizona Center for Disability Law, and the law firm of Perkins Coie LLP.
The ACLU repeatedly detailed in court filings that preventable suffering and deaths, including deaths by suicide in solitary confinement, were occurring in Arizona’s prisons.
Our lawsuit was originally filed in 2012, and in 2014, prison officials settled the case, promising to improve health care and conditions in isolation. But in the seven years between settling the case and going to trial, we repeatedly detailed in court filings that preventable suffering and deaths, including deaths by suicide in solitary confinement, were occurring in Arizona’s prisons.
Judge Silver’s ruling came after 15 days of trial held in November and December 2021, where we showed that incarcerated people suffer excruciating pain, gruesome permanent injuries, and preventable deaths due to the state’s failure to provide basic health care. The evidence we presented at trial included expert testimony regarding unconstitutional medical and mental health care, the psychological effects of isolation and conditions in isolation units, and inadequate health care staffing.
Judge Silver’s 200-page order finding Arizona prison officials in violation of the Eighth Amendment cited evidence showing that ADCRR has abdicated its responsibility to deliver health care through its merry-go-round of for-profit correctional health care vendors. Judge Silver also described the gratuitous cruelty of isolation units, including the indefinite incarceration in solitary confinement of seriously mentally ill persons and children who were convicted as adults.
Judge Silver’s order finding Arizona prison officials in violation of the Eighth Amendment cited evidence showing that ADCRR has abdicated its responsibility to deliver health care through for-profit correctional health care vendors.
Former prison employees and incarcerated people bravely stepped forward to describe to the court the inadequate health care, the inhumane treatment of people in isolation units, and the falsification of documents and information that prison officials previously provided to the court and attorneys for incarcerated people.
For example, one of our plaintiffs, Kendall Johnson, testified by video with great difficulty from her hospital bed in the women’s prison’s medical unit. Only 37 years old, Ms. Johnson described how she is unable to move her legs and arms, care for herself, read, or barely talk, and passes her time “counting the ceiling tiles” because she is never allowed outside. Although she entered prison as a healthy young woman who was a basketball player, in 2017 she began having numbness in her legs, problems walking, and falling.
Rather than investigate, prison health care staff wrote in Ms. Johnson’s medical records that she was delusional and faking her symptoms. When she finally saw a specialist after several years of notifying prison health care staff, the specialist’s recommendations were ignored. Judge Silver called Ms. Johnson’s testimony “profoundly disturbing” and her lack of medical care “a paradigmatic example of the most callous and inhumane indifference” that caused “unspeakable hardship” to her. Judge Silver described the incompetent medical care provided to another incarcerated person as a “seven-year odyssey of incompetence, cruelty, and eventual death.”
Judge Silver also found that ADCRR overuses isolation, with approximately 9.5 percent of its population in isolation — more than double the national average.
Judge Silver also characterized the trial testimony of an incarcerated person with schizophrenia, and videos shown in court of repeated uses of chemical agents against him while on suicide watch or housed in solitary confinement, as “appalling evidence” that was “nothing short of shocking.”
Judge Silver found that ADCRR overuses isolation, with approximately 9.5 percent of its population in isolation — more than double the national average. She noted that some 200 people who ADCRR did not believe require isolation were, nonetheless, in isolation. Further, Judge Silver found that the conditions in ADCRR detention units were “alarming,” with ADCRR failing to offer people showers, recreation, or even food.
Finally, Judge Silver wrote that ADCRR Director David Shinn’s testimony “made clear that he has adopted a strategy of pretending the problems he knows about do not exist.” When Mr. Shinn testified that the quality of health care for incarcerated people exceeded the health care he and his family received, and that he thought that the health care vendor had done an exceptional job because “only” 1 percent of prisoners infected with COVID-19 had died, there were audible gasps from the courtroom audience. Judge Silver described this testimony as “shocking” and “completely detached from reality,” noting Mr. Shinn’s “strange nonchalance” about the “undisputed failures” in the prison system he directed, and criticizing his “flagrant dereliction” of duty.
Judge Silver has asked both sides to provide her with names of neutral experts she can consult with before issuing a final order to prison officials on how to overhaul their health care and isolation units. Whether the department will finally do its duty under the Constitution is unclear. But just as we have for the last decade, we’ll be watching to make sure department officials follow through, for now, and for good.
We need you with us to keep fighting
Donate todayPublished July 8, 2022 at 05:34PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/fQAatNg
ACLU: Three Ways We're Fighting for Disability Rights in Courtrooms Across the Country
Three Ways We're Fighting for Disability Rights in Courtrooms Across the Country
Published July 8, 2022 at 04:54PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/8cSJjmY
People with disabilities have a right to equal access under the law, including equal access to voting, education, and protections in the criminal legal system. But too often, policies and practices at the polls, and in schools, jails, and prisons violate our fundamental rights. These violations hinder access to the ballot, risk students’ health and safety, and trap people with disabilities in the carceral system.
At the ACLU, we’re fighting back in the courts and in legislatures to help people with disabilities access their rights. In honor of Disability Pride Month this July, we’re highlighting a few of our recent battles and wins for disability rights across the country.
I. VOTING
More than 250 bills restricting access to voting have been introduced in 43 states since the 2020 election. While most of these laws are intended to suppress the votes of people of color, the effect of these laws falls most heavily on low-income people with disabilities — who are very often in communities of color. People with disabilities have faced years of barriers to voting, including inaccessible polling sites, inaccessible online voter registration, and inaccessible voting machines that polling staff can’t operate. Now, people with disabilities are also facing additional barriers at the polls and with voting by mail. While in some states, the pandemic has made voting by mail more accessible, in others, politicians have passed voter suppression bills that make casting a ballot more difficult or even impossible for voters with disabilities — especially for those who are Black.
The ACLU has active litigation tackling this issue in many states. In Georgia and in Texas, we’re challenging voter suppression laws that make it harder for all residents to vote — especially for people with disabilities in low-income communities of color. We argue that these restrictions not only violate the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, but also violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. We won’t stop fighting until every eligible voter has equal access to the ballot.
II. EDUCATION
Students with disabilities have a right to a public education, with their peers, and without risking their health and safety. This includes students whose disability makes them more vulnerable to severe complications from COVID-19. However, in the highly charged political climate we are living in, some states chose to prohibit schools from being able to require face masks — even at the height of the pandemic. This forced students with disabilities and their families to make an impossible decision: go to school and risk contracting COVID-19? Or stay home and lose out on their education?
The ACLU — along with our grassroots partners and affiliates — sued on behalf of these students with disabilities. We successfully argued that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act require public schools to provide equal access for students with disabilities. They cannot segregate students with disabilities by making them go to school remotely. And, they must provide reasonable modifications — even to state laws — if this is necessary to give a student with a disability equal access to their education.
In South Carolina, we challenged one such state ban last year in federal court alongside our allies — and won an order blocking its enforcement. The district court made it clear that the state’s ban on school mask mandates violates federal disability rights law because it discriminates against students with disabilities in violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
In Iowa, we also filed suit challenging the state’s ban on mask mandates in schools and won in the district and appeals court. While the Eighth Circuit has since ruled that the injunction is moot — because students can now get vaccinations and treatment — our lawsuit helped instill important protections for students with disabilities at the height of the pandemic.
As the pandemic continues to evolve, states continue to challenge these rulings — but the ACLU will keep fighting to ensure all children with disabilities have equal access to their education.
https://www.aclu.org/podcast/school-mask-mandate-bans-discriminate-against-disabled-kids
III. INCARCERATION
Prisons and jails are the lands that forgot the ADA. People with disabilities have a right to reasonable accommodations for their disability while incarcerated, on probation, or on parole — but prisons and jails operate as if these laws don’t apply to them.
For example, for people who are deaf or hard of hearing, prisons and jails are required to provide access to American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters, real time captioning, pocket talkers, and other auxiliary aids and services. But they seldom do. When prisons fail to provide these accommodations, incarcerated deaf people may never be able to learn the rules of the prison, defend themselves in disciplinary hearings, or even hear meal call.
Without these services, incarcerated people with hearing disabilities also cannot communicate with guards, medical staff, counselors, and family. The lack of communication access can also leave those on probation or parole with an inaccurate or incomplete understanding of conditions and requirements, putting them at constant risk of being returned to prison as well as hindering their ability to re-integrate into society through access to employment, health, and housing. As a result, people who are deaf or hard of hearing tend to be imprisoned more often, incarcerated longer, and returned to prison more quickly than others.
In Georgia, we have filed suits against the state’s Department of Corrections and the Department of Community Supervision. These state institutions have repeatedly failed to provide appropriate communication access to deaf and hard of hearing people, in violation of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Constitution.
We need you with us to keep fighting
Donate todayPublished July 8, 2022 at 04:54PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/8cSJjmY
Dominican Republic:2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Dominican Republic:2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published July 08, 2022 at 06:00PM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 08, 2022 at 06:00PM
Read more at imf.org
ACLU: Three Ways We're Fighting for Disability Rights in Courtrooms Across the Country
Three Ways We're Fighting for Disability Rights in Courtrooms Across the Country
Published July 8, 2022 at 09:24PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/1g3XSud
People with disabilities have a right to equal access under the law, including equal access to voting, education, and protections in the criminal legal system. But too often, policies and practices at the polls, and in schools, jails, and prisons violate our fundamental rights. These violations hinder access to the ballot, risk students’ health and safety, and trap people with disabilities in the carceral system.
At the ACLU, we’re fighting back in the courts and in legislatures to help people with disabilities access their rights. In honor of Disability Pride Month this July, we’re highlighting a few of our recent battles and wins for disability rights across the country.
I. VOTING
More than 250 bills restricting access to voting have been introduced in 43 states since the 2020 election. While most of these laws are intended to suppress the votes of people of color, the effect of these laws falls most heavily on low-income people with disabilities — who are very often in communities of color. People with disabilities have faced years of barriers to voting, including inaccessible polling sites, inaccessible online voter registration, and inaccessible voting machines that polling staff can’t operate. Now, people with disabilities are also facing additional barriers at the polls and with voting by mail. While in some states, the pandemic has made voting by mail more accessible, in others, politicians have passed voter suppression bills that make casting a ballot more difficult or even impossible for voters with disabilities — especially for those who are Black.
The ACLU has active litigation tackling this issue in many states. In Georgia and in Texas, we’re challenging voter suppression laws that make it harder for all residents to vote — especially for people with disabilities in low-income communities of color. We argue that these restrictions not only violate the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, but also violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. We won’t stop fighting until every eligible voter has equal access to the ballot.
II. EDUCATION
Students with disabilities have a right to a public education, with their peers, and without risking their health and safety. This includes students whose disability makes them more vulnerable to severe complications from COVID-19. However, in the highly charged political climate we are living in, some states chose to prohibit schools from being able to require face masks — even at the height of the pandemic. This forced students with disabilities and their families to make an impossible decision: go to school and risk contracting COVID-19? Or stay home and lose out on their education?
The ACLU — along with our grassroots partners and affiliates — sued on behalf of these students with disabilities. We successfully argued that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act require public schools to provide equal access for students with disabilities. They cannot segregate students with disabilities by making them go to school remotely. And, they must provide reasonable modifications — even to state laws — if this is necessary to give a student with a disability equal access to their education.
In South Carolina, we challenged one such state ban last year in federal court alongside our allies — and won an order blocking its enforcement. The district court made it clear that the state’s ban on school mask mandates violates federal disability rights law because it discriminates against students with disabilities in violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
In Iowa, we also filed suit challenging the state’s ban on mask mandates in schools and won in the district and appeals court. While the Eighth Circuit has since ruled that the injunction is moot — because students can now get vaccinations and treatment — our lawsuit helped instill important protections for students with disabilities at the height of the pandemic.
As the pandemic continues to evolve, states continue to challenge these rulings — but the ACLU will keep fighting to ensure all children with disabilities have equal access to their education.
https://www.aclu.org/podcast/school-mask-mandate-bans-discriminate-against-disabled-kids
III. INCARCERATION
Prisons and jails are the lands that forgot the ADA. People with disabilities have a right to reasonable accommodations for their disability while incarcerated, on probation, or on parole — but prisons and jails operate as if these laws don’t apply to them.
For example, for people who are deaf or hard of hearing, prisons and jails are required to provide access to American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters, real time captioning, pocket talkers, and other auxiliary aids and services. But they seldom do. When prisons fail to provide these accommodations, incarcerated deaf people may never be able to learn the rules of the prison, defend themselves in disciplinary hearings, or even hear meal call.
Without these services, incarcerated people with hearing disabilities also cannot communicate with guards, medical staff, counselors, and family. The lack of communication access can also leave those on probation or parole with an inaccurate or incomplete understanding of conditions and requirements, putting them at constant risk of being returned to prison as well as hindering their ability to re-integrate into society through access to employment, health, and housing. As a result, people who are deaf or hard of hearing tend to be imprisoned more often, incarcerated longer, and returned to prison more quickly than others.
In Georgia, we have filed suits against the state’s Department of Corrections and the Department of Community Supervision. These state institutions have repeatedly failed to provide appropriate communication access to deaf and hard of hearing people, in violation of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Constitution.
We need you with us to keep fighting
Donate todayPublished July 8, 2022 at 09:24PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/1g3XSud
Thursday, 7 July 2022
Central African Economic and Monetary Community:Common Policies in Support of Member Countries Reform Programs-Staff Report, and Statement by the Executive Director
Central African Economic and Monetary Community:Common Policies in Support of Member Countries Reform Programs-Staff Report, and Statement by the Executive Director
Published July 05, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 05, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Ireland:2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Informational Annex
Ireland:2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Informational Annex
Published July 07, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
Published July 07, 2022 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org
ACLU: Two Generations of Reproductive Rights Advocates on Life After Roe
Two Generations of Reproductive Rights Advocates on Life After Roe
Published July 8, 2022 at 12:27AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/HotxNPY
On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court turned back the clock nearly 50 years in the fight for abortion rights. In overturning Roe v. Wade, the court’s ruling dismantles federal constitutional protections and relegates women and all people who can become pregnant to second-class status. It’s a shameful step backward for civil rights and liberties, and a devastating blow to activists who have been fighting for decades to protect this right.
In light of this ruling, Louise Melling, the ACLU’s deputy legal director and director of the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Center for Liberty, talked to Chelsea Tejada, a staff attorney in the Reproductive Freedom Project, about how the abortion fight has evolved over the years and the path forward. Here’s what they had to say about this unprecedented ruling and what comes next.
Chelsea: This is a horrible moment, how are you holding up, Louise?
Louise: I’m full of rage and tears. I’m gutted for all those now and in the years to come who will not get the abortions they need for their lives, their families, their health, and their futures. For all those now and in the years to come whose lives and families will be upended by being forced to have a child. I’m in a rage over a court that looks to the status of our rights in 1868 to determine if the Constitution provides protection today, over its disdain for the lives of Black women given this country’s high maternal mortality rate, and over the idea that the state can force people to give birth. I may not live to see the change I want to see, but I will be all in with you and my colleagues at the ACLU in the push to get there.
C: Agreed. It is infuriating to see the court say that our rights today depend on what the ruling white, male class thought more than 150 years ago. It is an absolutely heartbreaking decision that will have a devastating impact on the health, lives, and dignity of millions of people across the country. It must be particularly hard for you to see this happen after you worked for decades in the fight to protect the constitutional right to abortion. Can you share what initially brought you to this work?
The struggle for our freedom is long term.
L: I came to the ACLU to work on reproductive rights. At the time, I was motivated by women’s rights. I’m 60. I grew of age in a different time. My mother was born when women couldn’t vote. She spoke of the challenges of unplanned pregnancies. I saw her frustration at what wasn’t possible for her and what wasn’t possible for other women. I saw fighting for abortion access as essential to a broader fight for equality. I didn’t understand in 1989 the importance of this work for transgender men and nonbinary people. I do now.
Now I’m here for gender justice, fighting for the right for women and all people who can become pregnant to access abortion, as well as for people to have children, to raise the children they have, to access gender affirming care, to live our authentic lives, and more. How did you come to this work, Chelsea?
C: I am so grateful for all the work you and others have done to advance gender justice. I pursued a career in reproductive rights litigation because I believe access to abortion is fundamental to an individual’s ability to control one’s body, life, and future. I understood that even when there was a constitutional right to abortion, it still existed for many only on paper: I had seen gerrymandered conservative state legislatures chip away at the right to abortion, making it impossible for many to access this essential health care and forcing them into parenthood all the while not providing any social safety network to help them raise those children. I wanted to stop those attacks and work to expand access, so that the right was a reality for every person. And that’s still what I want — even more so now that the Supreme Court has made abortion even more inaccessible and stigmatized. It is scary to hear the Supreme Court say that if you get pregnant, the government can control your body and force you to give birth. What keeps you fighting after a setback like this?
The court may have abandoned you, but we see you. You are not alone.
L: I have a new mantra that keeps me going, even at times like this: The only thing harder than continuing is stopping.
We don’t have to win — in the sense of a court victory or the signing of a new law — in order to do right. We do right by shining a light on harm. We do right by trying to hold the government accountable. We do right when we call out the oppressive structures that keep pushing against us, trying to hold us back, trying to crush us.
We do right by fighting for our own liberation. We are speaking our own truths — about pain, our pride and joy in who we are, our vision of something more beautiful and just. We do right by giving voice to our pain and our vision, to guide the journey that lays ahead. We do right when we enable dissenters to speak the truth about injustice, to provide some solace, to demand change. We do right when we don’t let silence sit. We do right by saying to people who need an abortion: The court may have abandoned you, but we see you. You are not alone.
There’s no shame in struggling. I think we all are. But it’s the vision of what happens if we stop that gets me going every time.
C: Do you have any advice for someone who is just getting started advocating for reproductive rights?
L: In general, I’m less interested in offering advice and more interested in listening and learning from those at the start of their journey, who are bringing a fresh perspective to these unprecedented times. There’s already so much wisdom in the generations that follow mine — about gender and intersectionality and organizing, for example. At a recent ACLU gathering, after hearing a younger colleague from Kentucky speak, and today, talking to you, Chelsea, I think, “You are the future, and I can’t wait to see what you do.”
All that said, I do have a couple of things to add. I know a lot of folks — like me — are angry. And given the current climate — particularly with the threats to voting rights — I’ve seen folks get angry about calls to vote and some of the usual tactics for change, thinking them too ineffectual. I get it, I really do. But I think about the 2024 election, and what could happen if more elected officials hellbent on further eroding our civil rights and liberties wind up in office. But no one should stop at the ballot box. The struggle for our freedom is long term. The moment is extraordinary, with more to come. We need a vision and an array of tactics, creative and traditional. And we need staying power. What advice would you give to people who want to help?
A court that is willing to take away a constitutional right that has been in place for nearly 50 years, and around which people have ordered their lives, is a court that will not hesitate to erode other rights.
C: There are so many ways and places to get involved in the fight: Tell your abortion story; speak to your loved ones about why abortion is important; write a letter to the editor in your local or school paper in support of reproductive autonomy; get involved in local, state, and federal elections; and push for better abortion policies — including in blue states — to improve access. Remember there is essential movement work outside litigation, such as through organizing and practical support networks. You could even become a health care worker who supports people during pregnancy, like a doula or midwife or nurse or doctor or pharmacist. Those who can should donate to abortion funds, show up for protests, call your representatives, sign petitions, and spread the word. There is something for everyone to do no matter where you are.
L: Chelsea, what do you want people to know about this decision?
C: First and foremost, I want everyone to know the real world impacts that this decision is having, and will continue to have, on individuals and families across the country. When the opinion came out, there were people in waiting rooms ready to get taken back for their appointments who then had to be turned away. We’ve heard that many of these patients were in tears, despondent that they would not be able to end their pregnancies that day as expected. And since then, many others have been, and will continue to be, denied access to this essential health care. The Supreme Court said it is fine for states to force these individuals to remain pregnant against their will and suffer the health risks and life-altering consequences of continued pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting.
I also think its important for folks to know that despite the court framing this as a decision that leaves it up to each state to decide whether abortion is allowed, the opinion also busts the door open for Congress to ban abortion nationwide the moment anti-abortion politicians wrangle a majority. We may have a patchwork landscape now, but without a federal constitutional right to abortion, its possible that this essential health care could get banned everywhere. It’s also good for people to know what might be next: A court that is willing to take away a constitutional right that has been in place for nearly 50 years, and around which people have ordered their lives, is a court that will not hesitate to erode other rights. The decision is horrible in and of itself for its outright attack on abortion, but I’m also afraid of what it means for our right and ability to access birth control and gender-affirming care, and to marry who we love.
L: A lot of advocates have talked about how Roe was “the floor, not the ceiling,” reflecting the fact that Roe has never been enough to ensure abortion access reaches everyone who needs it. What is the ceiling to you?
C: There is no ceiling when it comes to bodily autonomy and self-determination! The Supreme Court might think that it should be up to states to decide whether and when abortion is permitted, but I think it should be left to the individual who is pregnant to decide. Pregnant people are experts in their own lives. They always deserve to be trusted to make the decisions that are right for them, their health, their families, and their futures. While this is far from our recent or current reality, even in this difficult moment I am trying to focus on the potential future we could create together, where everyone has the ability to control their body and make important life decisions for themselves — whether it be terminating a pregnancy, accessing contraceptives, or accessing gender-affirming care. Louise, what message do you have for people on this long road ahead?
L: I will quote from remarks made recently by Deborah Archer, the president of the ACLU: “Every day, we have to wake up and fight and move forward, because if we’re not pushing forward, not fighting to move forward, we’re going to be pushed back — and that really just isn’t an option.”
Published July 8, 2022 at 12:27AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/HotxNPY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)