Republic of Armenia: Technical Assistance Report on Personal Income Tax: Policy Review and Introduction of a Universal Declaration
Published January 30, 2023 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Technical Assistance Report on Public Investment Management Assessment - PIMA and Climate PIMA
Published January 30, 2023 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
What it’s Like to Fight for Abortion Rights, Post-Roe
The last time we talked to Angel, Briana, Cazembe, Maleeha, and Veronika, abortion was still a constitutional right across the country. It was exactly one year ago, on the 49th anniversary of Roe, amid an unprecedented surge of anti-abortion attacks sweeping through state legislatures in the run-up to the Dobbs decision. As abortion rights activists were gearing up for the decision, more and more people who had abortions were sharing their stories publicly, hoping to lessen the stigma of abortion as a strategy to fight back.
Recently, we revisited five activists we spoke to last year through our partnership with We Testify, an organization dedicated to uplifting these voices, about what their work looks like in a post-Roe world and how storytelling continues to change minds and break through the politicization of essential reproductive health care. Here’s what they told us one year later, on what would have been the 50th anniversary of Roe.
These conversations have been edited and condensed for clarity.
On the moment the news broke about Roe v. Wade being overturned
CAZEMBE: There was a feeling of devastation, a little like, what would I do, had there not been an opportunity for me to be able to get an abortion when I needed one? I immediately started thinking about the people who had appointments that were worried about whether or not they would be able to make decisions for their bodies.
It made me worry because I’m also a queer and trans person and there was a part of the decision where Clarence Thomas talks about basically taking away the rights of same sex couples to be married, and also the use of contraceptives. It was not something I was expecting.
MALEEHA: I was dropping my daughter off at school and on my way back, my cousin texted me about it. I saw it, but I couldn’t really process it because I was driving … I went back home, parked in my garage, and just sat in my car for 30 minutes trying to let the news sink in … It really happened. Roe was overturned. We’re living this terrible reality. This is it.
BRIANA: Someone sent me an email or a social media post and they were just like, “Oh, I’m just checking on you.” And at that point I was doing some self-care, so I wasn’t really trying to be on social media like that. So I was just like, what are they checking on me for, that’s weird. And then when I got an email from work, I was like, whoa. Now it all makes sense.
ANGEL: I was devastated when I found out. At the same time, I wasn’t surprised, just being from Texas. Before the decision, I was hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst.
VERONIKA: Organizations in Texas such as the one I work for, Jane’s Due Process, had been dealing with a post-Roe reality since SB 8. And so we knew what to expect … we knew that the first thing that was going to happen was trigger laws coming into effect. And that’s exactly what happened.
On storytelling as an act of resistance
CAZEMBE: I think in a post-Roe world, storytelling is even more important … We need way more people to be talking about abortion because we need to normalize it. And I think talking about it takes away the stigma. Audre Lorde said, “Our silence doesn’t protect us.” You can be silent and not talk about abortion, but they’ll still come for you, you’ll still be criminalized, people you love will still not have access to the care that they need.
MALEEHA: I think it’s even more important now that those of us who’ve had abortions and are comfortable sharing our stories, do so. It can help people who might be feeling alone and afraid to find a community, because there are so many of us out there. There are so many people who have abortions for so many reasons, and I’d really like for our voices to be louder than those of the antis. … Just because Texas has banned abortion doesn’t mean people are not having abortions.
VERONIKA: There is a stigma that, “Oh, now since Roe has fallen, and a lot of states ban abortion, then abortion must be wrong.” That stigma is already ingrained in some people’s heads and it makes people think that abortion is a bad thing. And so telling stories adds a really personal touch on a very politicized topic.
BRIANA: We want people to know that there are resources available, and storytelling gets the word out there. Even though Texas Equal Access (TEA) Fund cannot fund abortions in Texas, we still have resources available for you to access. And sometimes, a lot of people don’t understand what you have to go through to get an abortion until storytelling comes into play. So if anything, I feel like now we need storytellers more than ever.
ANGEL: Being a storyteller was important before, but it’s more important now that we in Texas don’t have that option. Sharing your story with others makes them feel better about whether they’ve had an abortion before or not, or if they are seeking abortion, that there’s so many women out there that could be your friend, your sister, your mom, your cousin, anybody, your teacher that has also had an abortion.
MALEEHA: There are a lot of people that are on the fence. … For me, I want to focus on that middle ground because once they hear the stories of so many different people, it is absolutely possible to change minds and change hearts.
BRIANA: There have been plenty of conversations that I’ve had about my own story, when I’ve been talking to someone and they were like, “Oh, I didn’t think about that. Oh, I wouldn’t expect you to get an abortion.” I feel like if you can just change the mind of one person with storytelling, you’ve done something.
VERONIKA: I definitely think it’s still possible, when people explain how abortion actually helped them in their lives, like how it did with me. I was 17 and was looking forward to college, and if I hadn’t had an abortion, then I wouldn’t have been able to go to college because I had no money, no job, or anything. When you share that aspect, you show how it impacts people’s lives until way later. For me, it’s been about five years and it’s still one of the best decisions I’ve ever made, and it’s something that I don’t regret. I still feel that sharing your story can be really impactful because it’s a conversation that can change people’s minds little by little.
On keeping up the fight for abortion access
BRIANA: I think the morale is probably different for everyone. We are trying to be as optimistic as possible … You know, it’s very disheartening that we’re in this position. But at the same time, we are finding ways to readjust and try to figure out ways to still support people who are trying to access abortion. So I feel like as long as we think positive and stay optimistic, we’re still going to be able to be in this fight. You know, we’re doing this together. And we have a very large community. So I feel really good about being in this space.
Within TEA fund and I’m sure in many other organizations, we are trying our best to make sure our mental health is okay and that we are supporting each other. Because as we continue this fight, we want to make sure we take care of ourselves so we can help other people. This work is already hard.
MALEEHA: For me personally, it depends on the day you ask me. Some days I’m not feeling so great. With state legislative session coming up, they’re not just trying to attack abortion — they’re trying to attack all of the values that we care about. But we’re trying to remain optimistic and focus on our other reproductive justice values while still holding onto hope. People who are pregnant in Texas now need help more than ever because they are being abandoned by the state and anti-choice politicians.
CAZEMBE: I think activism is evolving post Roe. There are a lot of trainings for folks to become abortion doulas, to assist people getting abortions, raise money, drive them to clinics, take care of them after they had the abortions. … I think we’re fired up. … During the midterms, we saw people show up in record numbers to be able to say this. I know we did here in Georgia because we had a fight between a pro-abortion person and an anti-abortion person fighting for a Senate seat. And the person that was pro-abortion was also the one who ultimately won.
What I’ve heard from other non-binary folks is that folks want to get trained to be able to assist other trans and non-binary folks in getting their abortions, like by doing abortion doula trainings so we can take care of each other. Part of the training is talking to the people at the clinic and saying “Hey, this is what his pronouns are, this is what their pronouns are, and please use them when you refer to him.” And it’s a much better experience than having to advocate for yourself, when you have someone else there who can advocate for you.
VERONIKA: At Jane’s Due Process, our goal right now is to figure out how we can provide since we can’t really do the services that we were intended to do. And that means providing birth control or emergency contraceptives or just getting people well informed. I think all of us are ready to continue the fight
On the idea of reproductive justice for all
CAZEMBE: At the end of the day, we can’t just focus on abortion because even if we get abortion access, we still have patriarchy, we still have racism, we still have all these other systems in place that will keep abortion access limited to a specific few. So we have to continue to fight for all of these other systems of oppression to be abolished as well. For example, when we think about abolition of the police, in order for us to do that, we need to be able to protect abortion access because there are people who are being criminalized for wanting to end their pregnancies.
BRIANA: I feel like you can go on and on about what reproductive justice could mean, but at least for me, it’s making sure that people don’t have to go through all these financial barriers. I went through a lot of abortion stigma when I tried to access my abortion, so I wish a lot of people did not have to go through that. I wish people would just be a little bit more understanding and let people know, like, again, everyone has abortions and we all have abortions for many different reasons. And I wish that any and everyone can get an abortion for free. Like abortion for everyone. That’s what I would want.
MALEEHA: Reproductive justice to me means not just focusing on abortion, but the full spectrum of care. But it’s also for people who are choosing to be parents or want to be parents to be able to raise their children in safe and sustainable communities, which means paid sick leave, which means parental leave, which means doing something about the ridiculous and rising childcare costs and health care. That to me is reproductive justice.
What it’s Like to Fight for Abortion Rights, Post-Roe
The last time we talked to Angel, Briana, Cazembe, Maleeha, and Veronika, abortion was still a constitutional right across the country. It was exactly one year ago, on the 49th anniversary of Roe, amid an unprecedented surge of anti-abortion attacks sweeping through state legislatures in the run-up to the Dobbs decision. As abortion rights activists were gearing up for the decision, more and more people who had abortions were sharing their stories publicly, hoping to lessen the stigma of abortion as a strategy to fight back.
Recently, we revisited five activists we spoke to last year through our partnership with We Testify, an organization dedicated to uplifting these voices, about what their work looks like in a post-Roe world and how storytelling continues to change minds and break through the politicization of essential reproductive health care. Here’s what they told us one year later, on what would have been the 50th anniversary of Roe.
These conversations have been edited and condensed for clarity.
On the moment the news broke about Roe v. Wade being overturned
CAZEMBE: There was a feeling of devastation, a little like, what would I do, had there not been an opportunity for me to be able to get an abortion when I needed one? I immediately started thinking about the people who had appointments that were worried about whether or not they would be able to make decisions for their bodies.
It made me worry because I’m also a queer and trans person and there was a part of the decision where Clarence Thomas talks about basically taking away the rights of same sex couples to be married, and also the use of contraceptives. It was not something I was expecting.
MALEEHA: I was dropping my daughter off at school and on my way back, my cousin texted me about it. I saw it, but I couldn’t really process it because I was driving … I went back home, parked in my garage, and just sat in my car for 30 minutes trying to let the news sink in … It really happened. Roe was overturned. We’re living this terrible reality. This is it.
BRIANA: Someone sent me an email or a social media post and they were just like, “Oh, I’m just checking on you.” And at that point I was doing some self-care, so I wasn’t really trying to be on social media like that. So I was just like, what are they checking on me for, that’s weird. And then when I got an email from work, I was like, whoa. Now it all makes sense.
ANGEL: I was devastated when I found out. At the same time, I wasn’t surprised, just being from Texas. Before the decision, I was hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst.
VERONIKA: Organizations in Texas such as the one I work for, Jane’s Due Process, had been dealing with a post-Roe reality since SB 8. And so we knew what to expect … we knew that the first thing that was going to happen was trigger laws coming into effect. And that’s exactly what happened.
On storytelling as an act of resistance
CAZEMBE: I think in a post-Roe world, storytelling is even more important … We need way more people to be talking about abortion because we need to normalize it. And I think talking about it takes away the stigma. Audre Lorde said, “Our silence doesn’t protect us.” You can be silent and not talk about abortion, but they’ll still come for you, you’ll still be criminalized, people you love will still not have access to the care that they need.
MALEEHA: I think it’s even more important now that those of us who’ve had abortions and are comfortable sharing our stories, do so. It can help people who might be feeling alone and afraid to find a community, because there are so many of us out there. There are so many people who have abortions for so many reasons, and I’d really like for our voices to be louder than those of the antis. … Just because Texas has banned abortion doesn’t mean people are not having abortions.
VERONIKA: There is a stigma that, “Oh, now since Roe has fallen, and a lot of states ban abortion, then abortion must be wrong.” That stigma is already ingrained in some people’s heads and it makes people think that abortion is a bad thing. And so telling stories adds a really personal touch on a very politicized topic.
BRIANA: We want people to know that there are resources available, and storytelling gets the word out there. Even though Texas Equal Access (TEA) Fund cannot fund abortions in Texas, we still have resources available for you to access. And sometimes, a lot of people don’t understand what you have to go through to get an abortion until storytelling comes into play. So if anything, I feel like now we need storytellers more than ever.
ANGEL: Being a storyteller was important before, but it’s more important now that we in Texas don’t have that option. Sharing your story with others makes them feel better about whether they’ve had an abortion before or not, or if they are seeking abortion, that there’s so many women out there that could be your friend, your sister, your mom, your cousin, anybody, your teacher that has also had an abortion.
MALEEHA: There are a lot of people that are on the fence. … For me, I want to focus on that middle ground because once they hear the stories of so many different people, it is absolutely possible to change minds and change hearts.
BRIANA: There have been plenty of conversations that I’ve had about my own story, when I’ve been talking to someone and they were like, “Oh, I didn’t think about that. Oh, I wouldn’t expect you to get an abortion.” I feel like if you can just change the mind of one person with storytelling, you’ve done something.
VERONIKA: I definitely think it’s still possible, when people explain how abortion actually helped them in their lives, like how it did with me. I was 17 and was looking forward to college, and if I hadn’t had an abortion, then I wouldn’t have been able to go to college because I had no money, no job, or anything. When you share that aspect, you show how it impacts people’s lives until way later. For me, it’s been about five years and it’s still one of the best decisions I’ve ever made, and it’s something that I don’t regret. I still feel that sharing your story can be really impactful because it’s a conversation that can change people’s minds little by little.
On keeping up the fight for abortion access
BRIANA: I think the morale is probably different for everyone. We are trying to be as optimistic as possible … You know, it’s very disheartening that we’re in this position. But at the same time, we are finding ways to readjust and try to figure out ways to still support people who are trying to access abortion. So I feel like as long as we think positive and stay optimistic, we’re still going to be able to be in this fight. You know, we’re doing this together. And we have a very large community. So I feel really good about being in this space.
Within TEA fund and I’m sure in many other organizations, we are trying our best to make sure our mental health is okay and that we are supporting each other. Because as we continue this fight, we want to make sure we take care of ourselves so we can help other people. This work is already hard.
MALEEHA: For me personally, it depends on the day you ask me. Some days I’m not feeling so great. With state legislative session coming up, they’re not just trying to attack abortion — they’re trying to attack all of the values that we care about. But we’re trying to remain optimistic and focus on our other reproductive justice values while still holding onto hope. People who are pregnant in Texas now need help more than ever because they are being abandoned by the state and anti-choice politicians.
CAZEMBE: I think activism is evolving post Roe. There are a lot of trainings for folks to become abortion doulas, to assist people getting abortions, raise money, drive them to clinics, take care of them after they had the abortions. … I think we’re fired up. … During the midterms, we saw people show up in record numbers to be able to say this. I know we did here in Georgia because we had a fight between a pro-abortion person and an anti-abortion person fighting for a Senate seat. And the person that was pro-abortion was also the one who ultimately won.
What I’ve heard from other non-binary folks is that folks want to get trained to be able to assist other trans and non-binary folks in getting their abortions, like by doing abortion doula trainings so we can take care of each other. Part of the training is talking to the people at the clinic and saying “Hey, this is what his pronouns are, this is what their pronouns are, and please use them when you refer to him.” And it’s a much better experience than having to advocate for yourself, when you have someone else there who can advocate for you.
VERONIKA: At Jane’s Due Process, our goal right now is to figure out how we can provide since we can’t really do the services that we were intended to do. And that means providing birth control or emergency contraceptives or just getting people well informed. I think all of us are ready to continue the fight
On the idea of reproductive justice for all
CAZEMBE: At the end of the day, we can’t just focus on abortion because even if we get abortion access, we still have patriarchy, we still have racism, we still have all these other systems in place that will keep abortion access limited to a specific few. So we have to continue to fight for all of these other systems of oppression to be abolished as well. For example, when we think about abolition of the police, in order for us to do that, we need to be able to protect abortion access because there are people who are being criminalized for wanting to end their pregnancies.
BRIANA: I feel like you can go on and on about what reproductive justice could mean, but at least for me, it’s making sure that people don’t have to go through all these financial barriers. I went through a lot of abortion stigma when I tried to access my abortion, so I wish a lot of people did not have to go through that. I wish people would just be a little bit more understanding and let people know, like, again, everyone has abortions and we all have abortions for many different reasons. And I wish that any and everyone can get an abortion for free. Like abortion for everyone. That’s what I would want.
MALEEHA: Reproductive justice to me means not just focusing on abortion, but the full spectrum of care. But it’s also for people who are choosing to be parents or want to be parents to be able to raise their children in safe and sustainable communities, which means paid sick leave, which means parental leave, which means doing something about the ridiculous and rising childcare costs and health care. That to me is reproductive justice.
France: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for France
Published January 30, 2023 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
Republic of Kosovo: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Republic of Kosovo
Published January 27, 2023 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
Biden Must Reverse Plans to Revive Deadly Trump-era Asylum Bans
President Biden campaigned on a promise to restore our asylum laws, which allow people who can prove they are fleeing persecution because of their race, religion, political beliefs, nationality, or social group to secure permanent protection in the U.S. He specifically pledged to end a harmful Trump-era policy known as the “transit ban” that unfairly barred asylum for vulnerable migrants fleeing danger who did not apply for asylum in another country before reaching the U.S. southern border. But Biden recently announced plans to revive key features of that policy, along with aspects of another Trump ban that illegally blocked asylum for people who entered the country without going through an official border crossing.
These policies are harmful and illegal. The administration must immediately change course and make good on its pledge to ensure the most vulnerable have access to refuge.
The right to seek asylum, guaranteed in U.S. law, stems from international agreements following the atrocities of World War II. It reflects our nation’s commitment to protect people in need of refuge, and to prevent the forced return of vulnerable people into harm’s way. Congress designed our asylum laws to ensure that everyone escaping persecution has a chance to seek safe harbor here, regardless of how they must flee danger or enter the country.
The right to seek asylum guaranteed in U.S. law stems from international agreements following the atrocities of World War II.
The administration must recognize how bad it looks to bring back an anti-immigrant Trump policy from Stephen Miller’s playbook, especially one that multiple courts found to be unlawful. Despite the administration’s efforts to distinguish its proposal from Trump’s, they share a common core, which is to punish people for not requesting asylum in the countries they must travel through to reach the U.S., like Mexico and Guatemala. This ignores the obvious reason why so many do not seek asylum there: These countries do not offer real sanctuary for migrants fleeing persecution.
The administration’s own records, alongside NGOreports, make it painfully clear that these countries have not developed working asylum systems and that, for many migrants, it would be pointless and life-threatening to stay and apply. Critically, our courts have long recognized that a person’s decision not to seek asylum while in transit to the U.S. has no bearing on their need for protection.
This means that, like Trump’s rule, Biden’s proposal would send people facing persecution back to danger and bar asylum even to those people with the strongest claims. This includes people like a Cameroonian refugee who was barred from asylum under Trump’s transit ban, despite being brutally tortured by his country’s military for being an independence activist.
Biden’s proposed tweaks to Trump’s asylum bans are mere window dressing, designed to try to hide the needless suffering the plan will inflict on desperate people who must make the journey to safety however they can.
Biden has claimed that his proposal is different because the administration has separately created programs that allow people from four countries to apply in advance for temporary permission to come to the U.S. However, they only apply to a small number of nationalities and have limited capacity. They also require that applicants have a U.S. financial sponsor, a passport, resources to pay for a costly plane ticket, and the ability to wait for the application’s approval — the very things that the most vulnerable asylum seekers lack.
The core concept of asylum is that a person has an urgent need for protection — often from their own government. Although the new programs will benefit those who qualify, they are not a realistic option for many people who cannot ask their persecutor for travel permission or who are unable to wait in dangerous conditions while applying for approval, let alone those who lack financial sponsors and resources of their own.
The administration must immediately change course and make good on its pledge to ensure the most vulnerable have access to refuge.
The administration has also suggested that the potentially deadly impact of the proposed ban will be mitigated because migrants may be able to access asylum if they make a border appointment through an application on their phone. But this policy echoes Trump’s first asylum ban, found unlawful by the courts, that also barred people who entered the U.S. without going through an official border crossing. This approach disregards a key reality asylum seekers face in pursuit of safety.
The most vulnerable asylum seekers, who are frequently poor and who may speak neither English nor Spanish, are often those least likely to have the resources or capability to use a complicated smartphone app in a foreign language or wait weeks or months in danger for an appointment. This is precisely why our laws prioritize protection and allow individuals to be considered for asylum regardless of how they enter or arrive in the country.
Biden’s proposed tweaks to Trump’s asylum bans are mere window dressing, designed to try to hide the needless suffering the plan will inflict on desperate people who must make the journey to safety however they can. It would leave many of the most vulnerable asylum seekers in the same position as Trump’s bans did — unfairly denied critical, permanent protection for reasons that have nothing to do with their need for refuge.
Biden Must Reverse Plans to Revive Deadly Trump-era Asylum Bans
President Biden campaigned on a promise to restore our asylum laws, which allow people who can prove they are fleeing persecution because of their race, religion, political beliefs, nationality, or social group to secure permanent protection in the U.S. He specifically pledged to end a harmful Trump-era policy known as the “transit ban” that unfairly barred asylum for vulnerable migrants fleeing danger who did not apply for asylum in another country before reaching the U.S. southern border. But Biden recently announced plans to revive key features of that policy, along with aspects of another Trump ban that illegally blocked asylum for people who entered the country without going through an official border crossing.
These policies are harmful and illegal. The administration must immediately change course and make good on its pledge to ensure the most vulnerable have access to refuge.
The right to seek asylum, guaranteed in U.S. law, stems from international agreements following the atrocities of World War II. It reflects our nation’s commitment to protect people in need of refuge, and to prevent the forced return of vulnerable people into harm’s way. Congress designed our asylum laws to ensure that everyone escaping persecution has a chance to seek safe harbor here, regardless of how they must flee danger or enter the country.
The right to seek asylum guaranteed in U.S. law stems from international agreements following the atrocities of World War II.
The administration must recognize how bad it looks to bring back an anti-immigrant Trump policy from Stephen Miller’s playbook, especially one that multiple courts found to be unlawful. Despite the administration’s efforts to distinguish its proposal from Trump’s, they share a common core, which is to punish people for not requesting asylum in the countries they must travel through to reach the U.S., like Mexico and Guatemala. This ignores the obvious reason why so many do not seek asylum there: These countries do not offer real sanctuary for migrants fleeing persecution.
The administration’s own records, alongside NGOreports, make it painfully clear that these countries have not developed working asylum systems and that, for many migrants, it would be pointless and life-threatening to stay and apply. Critically, our courts have long recognized that a person’s decision not to seek asylum while in transit to the U.S. has no bearing on their need for protection.
This means that, like Trump’s rule, Biden’s proposal would send people facing persecution back to danger and bar asylum even to those people with the strongest claims. This includes people like a Cameroonian refugee who was barred from asylum under Trump’s transit ban, despite being brutally tortured by his country’s military for being an independence activist.
Biden’s proposed tweaks to Trump’s asylum bans are mere window dressing, designed to try to hide the needless suffering the plan will inflict on desperate people who must make the journey to safety however they can.
Biden has claimed that his proposal is different because the administration has separately created programs that allow people from four countries to apply in advance for temporary permission to come to the U.S. However, they only apply to a small number of nationalities and have limited capacity. They also require that applicants have a U.S. financial sponsor, a passport, resources to pay for a costly plane ticket, and the ability to wait for the application’s approval — the very things that the most vulnerable asylum seekers lack.
The core concept of asylum is that a person has an urgent need for protection — often from their own government. Although the new programs will benefit those who qualify, they are not a realistic option for many people who cannot ask their persecutor for travel permission or who are unable to wait in dangerous conditions while applying for approval, let alone those who lack financial sponsors and resources of their own.
The administration must immediately change course and make good on its pledge to ensure the most vulnerable have access to refuge.
The administration has also suggested that the potentially deadly impact of the proposed ban will be mitigated because migrants may be able to access asylum if they make a border appointment through an application on their phone. But this policy echoes Trump’s first asylum ban, found unlawful by the courts, that also barred people who entered the U.S. without going through an official border crossing. This approach disregards a key reality asylum seekers face in pursuit of safety.
The most vulnerable asylum seekers, who are frequently poor and who may speak neither English nor Spanish, are often those least likely to have the resources or capability to use a complicated smartphone app in a foreign language or wait weeks or months in danger for an appointment. This is precisely why our laws prioritize protection and allow individuals to be considered for asylum regardless of how they enter or arrive in the country.
Biden’s proposed tweaks to Trump’s asylum bans are mere window dressing, designed to try to hide the needless suffering the plan will inflict on desperate people who must make the journey to safety however they can. It would leave many of the most vulnerable asylum seekers in the same position as Trump’s bans did — unfairly denied critical, permanent protection for reasons that have nothing to do with their need for refuge.
Trans Students Should Be Treated With Dignity, Not Outed by Their Schools
Trans youth are once again under attack in state legislatures across the country. This year, dozens of proposed bills would require schools to out trans students against their will, regardless of any harmful consequences at school or at home. These forced outing bills claim to protect parents’ rights, but they do no such thing. Instead, these bills endanger trans students, who have the right not to be outed and to be treated with dignity and respect at school.
Trans Students Have a Right Not to Be Outed Without Their Consent
People — children and adults — have a constitutional right not to have intimate facts about their lives disclosed without their consent. That includes their sexual orientation, HIV status, or whether they are transgender. Children do not give up their constitutional rights by enrolling in public school. Students also have rights under federal law to keep certain information private, and not to have that information revealed without their consent. But forced outing bills are designed to do exactly that: reveal private information about trans students, regardless of whether the student consents or whether they may suffer negative or harmful consequences at school or at home from that disclosure.
Not All Trans Youth Are Safe at Home
Many parents may hope their children will come to them first with questions about gender and sexuality. But not every child has that option. Youth who are transgender face a real risk of rejection by the adults who are supposed to care for them when they disclose their gender identity. Trans people are much more likely to be abused by their immediate family based on their gender identity, and high risks of abuse and family rejection mean trans youth are overrepresented in foster care homes, juvenile detention centers, and homeless shelters. These high rates of familial rejection and abuse dramatically increase the risks of suicidality, substance abuse, and depression. Not every child can be their true selves at home without risking their physical or emotional well-being.
School May Be the Only Place Where Trans Youth Can Be Themselves
In addition, many supportive parents may want their children to be able to safely explore their identity without being worried that information will be disclosed against their will, and to have a safe space to ask questions they may be uncomfortable asking at home. For trans youth, especially those who cannot be safe at home, school may be one of the few places to be themselves. Trans youth thrive when they are affirmed in their gender identity, which includes being called by a name and pronouns that reflect who they are. When trans youth are supported at home, they can become the happy, confident children their parents hoped they would be. As trans youth themselves report, living as their true selves transforms their lives for the better. Many schools across the country recognize that a supportive learning environment requires treating trans students with dignity and respect, including (at a minimum) calling them by the name and pronouns they want to use.
Forced Outing Endangers Trans Youth; It Does Not Protect Parental Rights
Forced outing bills are not about parents’ rights: they are designed to harm trans students. Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children, including making important choices like whether to homeschool or enroll in public school. And the ACLU vigorously defends parents’ rights to raise their children, including the rights of LGBTQ parents, and parents’ rights to seek necessary and life-saving care for their children.
But none of those fundamental parental rights are protected by forced outing bills. Parents do not have a constitutional right to be told whenever their child uses a name or pronoun that is not typically associated with the child’s assigned sex at birth. Lawmakers know that —that’s why some of these forced outing bills explicitly do not require parental notification when a student asks to be called by their middle name, or a shortened version of their first name. Instead, these bills require schools to notify parents if someone at school thinks a student might be trans, based on gender nonconformity or a request to use a different name or pronoun.
Forced outing bills are meant to harm trans students, and in the process, hurt everyone: Some of these bills require parental notification any time a student acts in a way that doesn’t fit the school’s view of how a boy or a girl should act or dress. These kinds of laws don’t strengthen families; they just hurt kids, and especially trans youth.
Trans Students Should Be Treated With Dignity, Not Outed by Their Schools
Trans youth are once again under attack in state legislatures across the country. This year, dozens of proposed bills would require schools to out trans students against their will, regardless of any harmful consequences at school or at home. These forced outing bills claim to protect parents’ rights, but they do no such thing. Instead, these bills endanger trans students, who have the right not to be outed and to be treated with dignity and respect at school.
Trans Students Have a Right Not to Be Outed Without Their Consent
People — children and adults — have a constitutional right not to have intimate facts about their lives disclosed without their consent. That includes their sexual orientation, HIV status, or whether they are transgender. Children do not give up their constitutional rights by enrolling in public school. Students also have rights under federal law to keep certain information private, and not to have that information revealed without their consent. But forced outing bills are designed to do exactly that: reveal private information about trans students, regardless of whether the student consents or whether they may suffer negative or harmful consequences at school or at home from that disclosure.
Not All Trans Youth Are Safe at Home
Many parents may hope their children will come to them first with questions about gender and sexuality. But not every child has that option. Youth who are transgender face a real risk of rejection by the adults who are supposed to care for them when they disclose their gender identity. Trans people are much more likely to be abused by their immediate family based on their gender identity, and high risks of abuse and family rejection mean trans youth are overrepresented in foster care homes, juvenile detention centers, and homeless shelters. These high rates of familial rejection and abuse dramatically increase the risks of suicidality, substance abuse, and depression. Not every child can be their true selves at home without risking their physical or emotional well-being.
School May Be the Only Place Where Trans Youth Can Be Themselves
In addition, many supportive parents may want their children to be able to safely explore their identity without being worried that information will be disclosed against their will, and to have a safe space to ask questions they may be uncomfortable asking at home. For trans youth, especially those who cannot be safe at home, school may be one of the few places to be themselves. Trans youth thrive when they are affirmed in their gender identity, which includes being called by a name and pronouns that reflect who they are. When trans youth are supported at home, they can become the happy, confident children their parents hoped they would be. As trans youth themselves report, living as their true selves transforms their lives for the better. Many schools across the country recognize that a supportive learning environment requires treating trans students with dignity and respect, including (at a minimum) calling them by the name and pronouns they want to use.
Forced Outing Endangers Trans Youth; It Does Not Protect Parental Rights
Forced outing bills are not about parents’ rights: they are designed to harm trans students. Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children, including making important choices like whether to homeschool or enroll in public school. And the ACLU vigorously defends parents’ rights to raise their children, including the rights of LGBTQ parents, and parents’ rights to seek necessary and life-saving care for their children.
But none of those fundamental parental rights are protected by forced outing bills. Parents do not have a constitutional right to be told whenever their child uses a name or pronoun that is not typically associated with the child’s assigned sex at birth. Lawmakers know that —that’s why some of these forced outing bills explicitly do not require parental notification when a student asks to be called by their middle name, or a shortened version of their first name. Instead, these bills require schools to notify parents if someone at school thinks a student might be trans, based on gender nonconformity or a request to use a different name or pronoun.
Forced outing bills are meant to harm trans students, and in the process, hurt everyone: Some of these bills require parental notification any time a student acts in a way that doesn’t fit the school’s view of how a boy or a girl should act or dress. These kinds of laws don’t strengthen families; they just hurt kids, and especially trans youth.
Guinea: 2022 Article IV Consultation and Request for Disbursement Under the Rapid Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Guinea
Published January 24, 2023 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
Cabo Verde: First Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published January 24, 2023 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
How the ACLU Tracks Anti-LGBTQ Bills, and How We’re Fighting Back
Since 2015, political attacks against LGBTQ people have grown exponentially in state legislatures across the country. The ACLU has launched a nationwide tracking system to publicly document and categorize anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in state legislatures, and guide users to learn more about efforts to protect LGBTQ people and the right to safe, inclusive schools and communities.
The goal of this page is to help advocates, organizers, and allies take action against these bills while also revealing these proposals for what they are: a coordinated and political attack on LGBTQ people nationwide.
A: Our legal and advocacy team uses a bill-tracking service and works with ACLU affiliates and local organizations across the country to monitor state legislatures for bills targeting the rights of LGBTQ people. Each bill is reviewed by legal staff at the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project before being categorized on this site.
Q: What is the ACLU doing to stop these bills?
The ACLU’s first priority in this work is stopping any anti-LGBTQ bill from becoming law by working alongside our affiliates and coalition partners, building relationships with grassroots activists, direct engagement with lawmakers, and educating the broader public about the harms of these attacks. Because of this hard work, most proposed anti-LGBTQ bills never become law.
Bills that do become law may face a legal challenge from the ACLU, its affiliates, or one of our many partners across the LGBTQ rights movement. In recent years, the ACLU has challenged bills across the country restricting access to gender-affirming health care, barring trans people from updating identity documents, and denying transgender students equal access to school facilities and activities, as well as defending inclusive policies from political and legal attacks.
Show Up for Civil Liberties: Donate Now.
From free speech to reproductive freedom to immigrants' rights, the ACLU has shown up for over 100 years to protect civil liberties and civil rights for all — and we won't stop now. Donate today to help fund critical litigation, advocacy, and grassroots efforts.
Q: How are anti-LGBTQ bills categorized?
A: Each bill is assigned one or more categories based on its focus and issue matter. These include:
Health Care Access
Lawmakers are targeting access to medically-necessary health care for transgender people. Many of these bills ban affirming care for trans youth, and can even create criminal penalties for providing this care. These bills exempt identical treatments offered to cisgender youth and even surgeries forced onto intersex youth. Other bills block funding to medical centers that offer gender-affirming care, or block Medicaid or other insurance coverage of health care for transgender people.
Public Accommodations
Everyone should have access to spaces like restrooms and locker rooms, no matter their gender identity or gender expression, but these bills prohibit transgender people from using facilities like public restrooms and locker rooms. If you can’t use the restroom, you can’t fully participate in work, school, and public life.
Schools and Education
State lawmakers are trying to prevent trans students from participating in school activities like sports, force teachers to out students, and censor in-school discussions of LGBTQ people and issues. Instead of limiting resources, education, and opportunities, our schools should protect and support all students to learn and thrive.
Free Speech and Expression
Despite the safeguards of the First Amendment’s right to free expression, politicians are fighting to restrict how and when LGBTQ people can be themselves, limiting access to books about them and trying to ban or censor performances like drag shows.
Access to Accurate IDs
These bills attempt to limit the ability to update gender information on IDs and records, such as birth certificates and driver’s licenses. This puts transgender people at risk of losing jobs, facing harassment, and other harms. Trans, intersex, and nonbinary people need IDs that accurately reflect who they are to travel, apply for jobs, and enter public establishments without risk of harassment or harm.
Weakening Civil Rights Laws
These bills attempt to undermine and weaken nondiscrimination laws by allowing employers, businesses, and even hospitals to turn away LGBTQ people or refuse them equal treatment.
Other Anti-LGBTQ Bills
These bills don’t quite fit in any of the other categories, but nonetheless target the rights of LGBTQ people. Examples include bans on marriage and bills preempting local nondiscrimination protections.
Q: What makes a bill an “anti-LGBTQ” bill?
A: Each bill is reviewed by ACLU legal staff and designated an anti-LGBTQ bill based on its text, potential impact, and restrictions or intrusions based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Most of these bills may not use words like “gay” or “transgender” in their text but nonetheless aim directly to restrict the rights, safety, or liberty of LGBTQ people.
Not included on this page are bills and proposals which may have a disparate impact on LGBTQ people but are not directly targeted at LGBTQ people. Restrictions on abortion access, for example, have a disparate impact on LGBQ women and many transgender people, but will not be tallied on this page at this time. Click here to learn more about the ACLU’s work to expand reproductive freedom and abortion access.
Q: Where can I find data on anti-LGBTQ bills from previous years?
A: Legislative tallies from previous years can be found here.
Q: How can I take action against these anti-LGBTQ bills?
A: You can use our tracking system to see what’s happening in your state, and sign this legislative action petition to stay up to date on state legislative attacks on trans rights, reproductive freedom, and more.
How the ACLU Tracks Anti-LGBTQ Bills, and How We’re Fighting Back
Since 2015, political attacks against LGBTQ people have grown exponentially in state legislatures across the country. The ACLU has launched a nationwide tracking system to publicly document and categorize anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in state legislatures, and guide users to learn more about efforts to protect LGBTQ people and the right to safe, inclusive schools and communities.
The goal of this page is to help advocates, organizers, and allies take action against these bills while also revealing these proposals for what they are: a coordinated and political attack on LGBTQ people nationwide.
A: Our legal and advocacy team uses a bill-tracking service and works with ACLU affiliates and local organizations across the country to monitor state legislatures for bills targeting the rights of LGBTQ people. Each bill is reviewed by legal staff at the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project before being categorized on this site.
Q: What is the ACLU doing to stop these bills?
The ACLU’s first priority in this work is stopping any anti-LGBTQ bill from becoming law by working alongside our affiliates and coalition partners, building relationships with grassroots activists, direct engagement with lawmakers, and educating the broader public about the harms of these attacks. Because of this hard work, most proposed anti-LGBTQ bills never become law.
Bills that do become law may face a legal challenge from the ACLU, its affiliates, or one of our many partners across the LGBTQ rights movement. In recent years, the ACLU has challenged bills across the country restricting access to gender-affirming health care, barring trans people from updating identity documents, and denying transgender students equal access to school facilities and activities, as well as defending inclusive policies from political and legal attacks.
Show Up for Civil Liberties: Donate Now.
From free speech to reproductive freedom to immigrants' rights, the ACLU has shown up for over 100 years to protect civil liberties and civil rights for all — and we won't stop now. Donate today to help fund critical litigation, advocacy, and grassroots efforts.
Q: How are anti-LGBTQ bills categorized?
A: Each bill is assigned one or more categories based on its focus and issue matter. These include:
Health Care Access
Lawmakers are targeting access to medically-necessary health care for transgender people. Many of these bills ban affirming care for trans youth, and can even create criminal penalties for providing this care. These bills exempt identical treatments offered to cisgender youth and even surgeries forced onto intersex youth. Other bills block funding to medical centers that offer gender-affirming care, or block Medicaid or other insurance coverage of health care for transgender people.
Public Accommodations
Everyone should have access to spaces like restrooms and locker rooms, no matter their gender identity or gender expression, but these bills prohibit transgender people from using facilities like public restrooms and locker rooms. If you can’t use the restroom, you can’t fully participate in work, school, and public life.
Schools and Education
State lawmakers are trying to prevent trans students from participating in school activities like sports, force teachers to out students, and censor in-school discussions of LGBTQ people and issues. Instead of limiting resources, education, and opportunities, our schools should protect and support all students to learn and thrive.
Free Speech and Expression
Despite the safeguards of the First Amendment’s right to free expression, politicians are fighting to restrict how and when LGBTQ people can be themselves, limiting access to books about them and trying to ban or censor performances like drag shows.
Access to Accurate IDs
These bills attempt to limit the ability to update gender information on IDs and records, such as birth certificates and driver’s licenses. This puts transgender people at risk of losing jobs, facing harassment, and other harms. Trans, intersex, and nonbinary people need IDs that accurately reflect who they are to travel, apply for jobs, and enter public establishments without risk of harassment or harm.
Weakening Civil Rights Laws
These bills attempt to undermine and weaken nondiscrimination laws by allowing employers, businesses, and even hospitals to turn away LGBTQ people or refuse them equal treatment.
Other Anti-LGBTQ Bills
These bills don’t quite fit in any of the other categories, but nonetheless target the rights of LGBTQ people. Examples include bans on marriage and bills preempting local nondiscrimination protections.
Q: What makes a bill an “anti-LGBTQ” bill?
A: Each bill is reviewed by ACLU legal staff and designated an anti-LGBTQ bill based on its text, potential impact, and restrictions or intrusions based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Most of these bills may not use words like “gay” or “transgender” in their text but nonetheless aim directly to restrict the rights, safety, or liberty of LGBTQ people.
Not included on this page are bills and proposals which may have a disparate impact on LGBTQ people but are not directly targeted at LGBTQ people. Restrictions on abortion access, for example, have a disparate impact on LGBQ women and many transgender people, but will not be tallied on this page at this time. Click here to learn more about the ACLU’s work to expand reproductive freedom and abortion access.
Q: Where can I find data on anti-LGBTQ bills from previous years?
A: Legislative tallies from previous years can be found here.
Q: How can I take action against these anti-LGBTQ bills?
A: You can use our tracking system to see what’s happening in your state, and sign this legislative action petition to stay up to date on state legislative attacks on trans rights, reproductive freedom, and more.
Arizona Violated the Rights of Incarcerated People for More Than a Decade. That Will Finally End.
Arizona chose — for more than a decade — to violate the constitutional rights of the people in its custody. It denied medical care to the men and women incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) for years, causing untold suffering and deaths. It ignored the mental health needs of people in ADCRR, spraying them with pepper spray or shooting them with pepper ball guns instead of providing treatment. And it buried people in solitary confinement for years on end, sometimes for the terrible misdeed of being assaulted.
All the while, ADCRR denied that these constitutional violations were occurring and frequently told outright lies to the court presiding over Jensen v. Shinn, the lawsuit challenging these unlawful conditions brought by the ACLU’s National Prison Project, the ACLU of Arizona, the Prison Law Office, the Arizona Center for Disability Law, and the law firm of Perkins Coie LLP in 2012.
Arizona chose — for more than a decade — to violate the constitutional rights of the people in its custody.
Finally, Arizona is being held to account. This month, U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver issued a preliminary but sweeping remedial order, telling state officials what they must do to bring standards up to constitutional muster — and that the state will not weasel out of its constitutional obligations this time.
What our lawsuit revealed about Arizona’s prison conditions
The remedial order is the outcome of a 15-day trial in November and December 2021. After reviewing evidence and testimony at trial, Judge Silver concluded that ADCRR systematically violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment by having a “grossly inadequate” medical and mental health care system, and by depriving people in solitary confinement of “basic human needs” including adequate nutrition, exercise, and social interaction.
Among the examples of ADCRR’s utter failure to meet constitutional standards was Kendall Johnson. At age 33, the former basketball player started experiencing numbness in her feet and legs and asked for medical care. ADCRR failed for years to diagnose her multiple sclerosis or provide her with the treatment that could slow the progression of the disease. Instead of doing the tests necessary for diagnosis, the ADCRR doctors thought that Ms. Johnson might have conversion disorder — an extremely rare mental health disorder in which a person believes they have a disease. Due to ADCRR’s failures, by the time of her testimony, at age 37, Ms. Johnson was bedridden, unable to care for her most basic needs, read due to her vision loss, and eat without assistance.
On Jan. 9, 2023, Judge Silver issued a preliminary order setting out what she will require of ADCRR.
Another example was Rahim Muhammad, a man diagnosed with schizophrenia who was held in solitary confinement for almost seven years, despite ADCRR’s own classification system finding that he did not pose a security risk that warranted such isolation. Mr. Muhammad spent most of the year leading up to trial on suicide watch, where he was pepper-sprayed almost 50 times for banging his head on the wall of his cell, usually while clearly delusional. When — after a year — ADCRR finally transferred him to an inpatient mental health unit where he was allowed out of his cell more often and received a minimal amount of treatment, Mr. Muhammad stopped harming himself and was no longer subjected to pepper spray.
Sadly, Ms. Johnson and Mr. Muhammad are just two of the thousands of people whose rights ADCRR violated.
How Arizona is being held accountable
On Jan. 9, 2023, Judge Silver issued a preliminary order setting out what she will require of ADCRR. Among other things, she will require ADCRR to hire and train sufficient medical, mental health, and correctional staff to provide adequate care to and monitoring of the people in its custody.
The order requires ADCRR to provide clinically appropriate medical and mental health care, including specific actions such as assigning each person a primary provider, improving the electronic medical record system, and ensuring that people are actually sent to the specialists they need. The court also ordered that the care provided will be assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The court’s recognition that the care must be qualitatively appropriate should mitigate the tendency of ADCRR, like many prison and jail systems throughout the country, to treat health care as a box-checking exercise. For example, ADCRR has long counted two-minute interactions between mental health staff and a person with a serious mental illness as a counseling visit, even if they are just speaking to each other through the crack between the cell door and the wall. It has also considered a visit to a nurse at which no tests or evaluations are conducted, regardless of the seriousness of the person’s complaint, to be adequate care. The court’s order should put a stop to these performative but ineffective practices.
The court’s order should put a stop to these performative but ineffective practices.
The court established a presumptive two-month time limit for people to stay in solitary confinement, where many have languished for years. The court will also require ADCRR to: ensure that everyone is let out of their cells for at least 14 hours per week; provide people in solitary confinement three meals a day, two of which must be hot; repair and maintain the facilities in a habitable condition; and use an electronic system to track the actions of correctional officers, to ensure that they are conducting welfare checks and not improperly denying people recreation and other out-of-cell activities.
The court’s order is a strong statement that constitutional rights must be respected, even in a prison system that has turned mistreatment, cruelty, and suffering into the norm. This outcome was possible only because of the courage of Ms. Kendall, Mr. Muhammad, and the many other people who came forward to demand recognition of the rights that the U.S. Constitution protects for themselves and others in ADCRR custody. We hope Arizona will rise to the challenge of treating the people in its custody with the basic human dignity that each and every one of us deserves.
Arizona Violated the Rights of Incarcerated People for More Than a Decade. That Will Finally End.
Arizona chose — for more than a decade — to violate the constitutional rights of the people in its custody. It denied medical care to the men and women incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) for years, causing untold suffering and deaths. It ignored the mental health needs of people in ADCRR, spraying them with pepper spray or shooting them with pepper ball guns instead of providing treatment. And it buried people in solitary confinement for years on end, sometimes for the terrible misdeed of being assaulted.
All the while, ADCRR denied that these constitutional violations were occurring and frequently told outright lies to the court presiding over Jensen v. Shinn, the lawsuit challenging these unlawful conditions brought by the ACLU’s National Prison Project, the ACLU of Arizona, the Prison Law Office, the Arizona Center for Disability Law, and the law firm of Perkins Coie LLP in 2012.
Arizona chose — for more than a decade — to violate the constitutional rights of the people in its custody.
Finally, Arizona is being held to account. This month, U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver issued a preliminary but sweeping remedial order, telling state officials what they must do to bring standards up to constitutional muster — and that the state will not weasel out of its constitutional obligations this time.
What our lawsuit revealed about Arizona’s prison conditions
The remedial order is the outcome of a 15-day trial in November and December 2021. After reviewing evidence and testimony at trial, Judge Silver concluded that ADCRR systematically violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment by having a “grossly inadequate” medical and mental health care system, and by depriving people in solitary confinement of “basic human needs” including adequate nutrition, exercise, and social interaction.
Among the examples of ADCRR’s utter failure to meet constitutional standards was Kendall Johnson. At age 33, the former basketball player started experiencing numbness in her feet and legs and asked for medical care. ADCRR failed for years to diagnose her multiple sclerosis or provide her with the treatment that could slow the progression of the disease. Instead of doing the tests necessary for diagnosis, the ADCRR doctors thought that Ms. Johnson might have conversion disorder — an extremely rare mental health disorder in which a person believes they have a disease. Due to ADCRR’s failures, by the time of her testimony, at age 37, Ms. Johnson was bedridden, unable to care for her most basic needs, read due to her vision loss, and eat without assistance.
On Jan. 9, 2023, Judge Silver issued a preliminary order setting out what she will require of ADCRR.
Another example was Rahim Muhammad, a man diagnosed with schizophrenia who was held in solitary confinement for almost seven years, despite ADCRR’s own classification system finding that he did not pose a security risk that warranted such isolation. Mr. Muhammad spent most of the year leading up to trial on suicide watch, where he was pepper-sprayed almost 50 times for banging his head on the wall of his cell, usually while clearly delusional. When — after a year — ADCRR finally transferred him to an inpatient mental health unit where he was allowed out of his cell more often and received a minimal amount of treatment, Mr. Muhammad stopped harming himself and was no longer subjected to pepper spray.
Sadly, Ms. Johnson and Mr. Muhammad are just two of the thousands of people whose rights ADCRR violated.
How Arizona is being held accountable
On Jan. 9, 2023, Judge Silver issued a preliminary order setting out what she will require of ADCRR. Among other things, she will require ADCRR to hire and train sufficient medical, mental health, and correctional staff to provide adequate care to and monitoring of the people in its custody.
The order requires ADCRR to provide clinically appropriate medical and mental health care, including specific actions such as assigning each person a primary provider, improving the electronic medical record system, and ensuring that people are actually sent to the specialists they need. The court also ordered that the care provided will be assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The court’s recognition that the care must be qualitatively appropriate should mitigate the tendency of ADCRR, like many prison and jail systems throughout the country, to treat health care as a box-checking exercise. For example, ADCRR has long counted two-minute interactions between mental health staff and a person with a serious mental illness as a counseling visit, even if they are just speaking to each other through the crack between the cell door and the wall. It has also considered a visit to a nurse at which no tests or evaluations are conducted, regardless of the seriousness of the person’s complaint, to be adequate care. The court’s order should put a stop to these performative but ineffective practices.
The court’s order should put a stop to these performative but ineffective practices.
The court established a presumptive two-month time limit for people to stay in solitary confinement, where many have languished for years. The court will also require ADCRR to: ensure that everyone is let out of their cells for at least 14 hours per week; provide people in solitary confinement three meals a day, two of which must be hot; repair and maintain the facilities in a habitable condition; and use an electronic system to track the actions of correctional officers, to ensure that they are conducting welfare checks and not improperly denying people recreation and other out-of-cell activities.
The court’s order is a strong statement that constitutional rights must be respected, even in a prison system that has turned mistreatment, cruelty, and suffering into the norm. This outcome was possible only because of the courage of Ms. Kendall, Mr. Muhammad, and the many other people who came forward to demand recognition of the rights that the U.S. Constitution protects for themselves and others in ADCRR custody. We hope Arizona will rise to the challenge of treating the people in its custody with the basic human dignity that each and every one of us deserves.
Uganda: Second and Third Review under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement; and Requests for a Waiver of Nonobservance of Performance Criterion and Rephasing of Access; Press Release; and Staff Report
Published January 23, 2023 at 08:00AM Read more at imf.org
ACLU History: Showing Up for Abortion Rights Since 1920
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade may feel like it’s said and done, marking the end of the federal right to reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy. But we are not without power. With dedicated members and activists behind us, the ACLU has been embedded in the fight for reproductive freedom for decades, and is no stranger to challenging sizable odds.
As we remember Roe v. Wade on the 50th anniversary of the decision, take a look back at some of the many fights led by the ACLU along the way. Roe being overturned is an enormous set back, but we have fought uphill battles before and won’t stop now.
Chile: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Supplement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Chile
Published January 20, 2023 at 11:00PM Read more at imf.org
To Root Out Racism in the Criminal Legal System, We Can’t Fear Too Much Justice
Long before I joined the ACLU, I was just a skinny brown kid who grew up in the “Inland Empire” — a region of Southern California that includes 52 cities spread across Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Even when I’ve moved away at different points of my life, the Inland Empire has always been a place that I’ve called home.
However, my younger self could never have imagined that the same field I played club soccer on at Riverside Poly High School was used for a Ku Klux Klan recruitment and cross-burning event less than a century earlier. I was unaware that I attended my high school homecoming a few streets down from where “The Birth of a Nation” — a horribly racist film that glorified the lynchings of Black Americans — once hosted its world debut at the Loring Opera House. Even as of a few months ago, I didn’t know that Riverside’s Hall of Justice sits fewer than two miles from where Lowell Elementary School — which primarily educated Black and Latinx students — was firebombed and destroyed during desegregation protests in 1965.
These are facts I learned about my home as a legal fellow with the ACLU. I am part of a team of attorneys who are bringing the first challenge to death penalty prosecutions under the landmark law known as the California Racial Justice Act (CRJA). We represent two Black men, Russell Austin and Michael Mosby, each of whom face the death penalty in Riverside County — one of the most prolific death-sentencing counties in the nation. Today, a Riverside Superior Court judge will determine whether our two clients will receive an evidentiary hearing under the CRJA. At an evidentiary hearing, we will introduce evidence to prove that our clients received unequal treatment compared to white people with similar cases and will argue that they should therefore be deemed ineligible for the death penalty.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs into law the California Racial Justice Act (CRJA).
ASSOCIATED PRESS
The California Racial Justice Act’s Ambitious Goal
The CRJA has an ambitious goal: rooting out racism from the criminal legal system. This law allows defendants to challenge more surreptitious forms of implicit and institutional racism in their cases.
It’s important to underline just how significant the CRJA is. The Supreme Court decision in McCleskey v. Kemp closed off constitutional challenges that rely on showing the racist application of the death penalty. Instead, the court required a condemned person to prove that “the decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose.” Otherwise, the court infamously said, a theory like Mr. McCleskey’s could open the entire criminal legal system to constitutional challenge for its racist operation. In his dissent, Justice William Brennan said such a concern exhibited a “fear of too much justice.” The CRJA takes direct aim at the court’s decision in McCleskey by allowing people to challenge racism in all forms — explicit, implicit, and structural — in the administration of the criminal legal system, without requiring them to take on the added burden of showing intent in their own cases.
Enabled by the CRJA, Mr. Austin and Mr. Mosby have introduced four statistical analyses from three scholars that reach the same conclusion: Riverside’s death penalty system more severely punishes Black people than any other racial group.
At each step of prosecutorial decision-making in Riverside County, Black defendants are on average treated more harshly than any other racial or ethnic group. In fact, one analysis found that Black defendants in Riverside are approximately nine times more likely to have the prosecution seek death and 14 times more likely to have death sentences imposed against them than white defendants whose cases are similar. Just as significant is the way that Riverside prosecutors have avoided seeking death sentences in homicide cases with Black victims. Cases with Black victims are 61 percent less likely to result in a death sentence than cases with white victims.
The Past is Inseparable from the Present
While these statistics are in themselves striking, they tell only a partial story of Riverside’s death penalty system. When the California legislature developed the CRJA, it acknowledged that in order to develop a truly fair and equitable criminal legal system, we have to be willing to understand how and why systems functioned unfairly and inequitably in the first place. In short, the CRJA stands for the notion that our criminal legal system’s past is inseparable from our criminal legal system’s present.
To help the court better understand the development and operation of Riverside’s unjust and racist capital punishment system, Mr. Austin and Mr. Mosby also introduced historical evidence that demonstrates a clear, cross-generational record of state-sponsored maltreatment and vigilante violence exacted against Black people in Riverside County.
Historical accounts show that proud members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and KKK-endorsed candidates once dominated Riverside’s local law enforcement and government offices. In positions of immense local influence, local government officials reinforced institutional segregation and designed an intricate system of oppression that harmed non-white Riverside residents throughout the 20th century. Even once legally sanctioned segregation was in the rearview, segregation continued, and more covert forms of racial and discrimination persisted in Riverside.
From the mid- to late-20th centuries, law enforcement raids brought terror into Black neighborhoods in Riverside. Even over the last few decades, Riverside law enforcement officials have faced several national controversies for killing and assaulting Black and Latinx people. The Riverside County District Attorney’s Office has time and again demonstrated an unwillingness to protect the lives of people of color by failing to seek criminal prosecutions of county officers for shooting unarmed victims.
Today, the Inland Empire’s law enforcement and criminal legal systems — which remain sources of immense distrust for many Black residents — disproportionately impose the death penalty against Black people. California’s death row population — the largest in the country — includes 127 people sentenced to death in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Nearly three quarters of those were people of color, including 43 Black people (roughly 34 percent).
We can’t tell an honest story about the Inland Empire — and we can’t understand how our criminal legal system operates — unless we include the violence and discrimination suffered by Black, Latinx, Asian, and Indigenous people here.d
If the far-reaching potential impact of the CRJA is to be realized, our courts must acknowledge that no form of racism, overt or covert, is legally acceptable. People in the Inland Empire — Mr. Austin and Mr. Mosby included — deserve an accessible legal system that takes responsibility for our society’s past failures and advances the creative solutions of the CRJA to build a more just, equitable future. Our legal system and its actors cannot be afraid of too much justice.
