ACLU: Crossing the Bridge Together: The Fight for Voting Rights Marches On

Crossing the Bridge Together: The Fight for Voting Rights Marches On

On January 12, a tornado tore across central Alabama, including the historic city of Selma. Since then, community groups have been clearing roads and picking up the pieces from the damage. Simultaneously, the city is preparing for its annual Bridge Crossing Jubilee: a recognition of Bloody Sunday, the Selma-to-Montgomery march, and the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

As the ACLU of Alabama prepares for our annual trip to Selma to commemorate the historic bridge crossing on March 5, amidst such devastation in the city, I feel the immense tradition and history of Selma, a place where our elders accomplished so much to make voting rights possible. 58 years after the historic movement that led to the 1965 enactment of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the legal enfranchisement of Black voters, I remain struck by the duality of what voting rights in Alabama has meant for this nation.

By the time we reach the 60th anniversary of the Selma Bridge crossing, we may very well be commemorating something that has less power as a federal protection and can no longer ensure our access to the ballot.

We’re approaching the 10th anniversary of Shelby v. Holder, which stripped the VRA of preclearance and now we await the decision of Milligan v. Merrill which could possibly strip the vehicle of accountability for voter access and representation through Section 2. By the time we reach the 60th anniversary of the Selma Bridge crossing, we may very well be commemorating something that has less power as a federal protection and can no longer ensure our access to the ballot.

What I find most challenging in these times are the attempts by state legislators in Alabama and throughout the South to further disenfranchise Black Southerners. Legislation such as HB 7 in Alabama, which prohibits state agencies, local school boards, and public institutions of higher education from promoting, endorsing, or affirming certain divisive concepts related to race, sex, and religion. This type of bill threatens to erase the history of activism and protest that made voting possible.

Additionally, states such as Mississippi are battling legislation like HB 1020, a move to take voting power, political power, and tax revenue away from the majority Black citizens of Jackson. The legislation illegally empowers Judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court and prosecutors appointed by the state attorney general to oversee criminal and civil cases in Jackson.

This fight beckons us to be arm-in-arm, to lean on one another, to organize with our neighbors, and to see that our future is one of hope.

The efforts to codify white supremacy in 2023 are not surprising. We are seeing these attempts regionally and nationwide. Still, I remain hopeful for the vision ahead and the shoulders we stand on.

The attempt to dismantle the Voting Rights Act piece-by-piece will not stop the much longer march toward justice. Our right to vote has never been solely advocated for by the courts, nor by Congress. The right to vote was fought for by the people. The fight came from communities that cared about their future. The fight came from people that didn’t accept brokenness. Our communities then, and now, understand that the fight to uphold our civil rights is a daily pursuit.

This fight beckons us to be arm-in-arm, to lean on one another, to organize with our neighbors, and to see that our future is one of hope. One where we demand equal access and resources for all.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 28, 2023 at 09:51PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/MVqbP67

ACLU: Crossing the Bridge Together: The Fight for Voting Rights Marches On

Crossing the Bridge Together: The Fight for Voting Rights Marches On

On January 12, a tornado tore across central Alabama, including the historic city of Selma. Since then, community groups have been clearing roads and picking up the pieces from the damage. Simultaneously, the city is preparing for its annual Bridge Crossing Jubilee: a recognition of Bloody Sunday, the Selma-to-Montgomery march, and the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

As the ACLU of Alabama prepares for our annual trip to Selma to commemorate the historic bridge crossing on March 5, amidst such devastation in the city, I feel the immense tradition and history of Selma, a place where our elders accomplished so much to make voting rights possible. 58 years after the historic movement that led to the 1965 enactment of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the legal enfranchisement of Black voters, I remain struck by the duality of what voting rights in Alabama has meant for this nation.

By the time we reach the 60th anniversary of the Selma Bridge crossing, we may very well be commemorating something that has less power as a federal protection and can no longer ensure our access to the ballot.

We’re approaching the 10th anniversary of Shelby v. Holder, which stripped the VRA of preclearance and now we await the decision of Milligan v. Merrill which could possibly strip the vehicle of accountability for voter access and representation through Section 2. By the time we reach the 60th anniversary of the Selma Bridge crossing, we may very well be commemorating something that has less power as a federal protection and can no longer ensure our access to the ballot.

What I find most challenging in these times are the attempts by state legislators in Alabama and throughout the South to further disenfranchise Black Southerners. Legislation such as HB 7 in Alabama, which prohibits state agencies, local school boards, and public institutions of higher education from promoting, endorsing, or affirming certain divisive concepts related to race, sex, and religion. This type of bill threatens to erase the history of activism and protest that made voting possible.

Additionally, states such as Mississippi are battling legislation like HB 1020, a move to take voting power, political power, and tax revenue away from the majority Black citizens of Jackson. The legislation illegally empowers Judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court and prosecutors appointed by the state attorney general to oversee criminal and civil cases in Jackson.

This fight beckons us to be arm-in-arm, to lean on one another, to organize with our neighbors, and to see that our future is one of hope.

The efforts to codify white supremacy in 2023 are not surprising. We are seeing these attempts regionally and nationwide. Still, I remain hopeful for the vision ahead and the shoulders we stand on.

The attempt to dismantle the Voting Rights Act piece-by-piece will not stop the much longer march toward justice. Our right to vote has never been solely advocated for by the courts, nor by Congress. The right to vote was fought for by the people. The fight came from communities that cared about their future. The fight came from people that didn’t accept brokenness. Our communities then, and now, understand that the fight to uphold our civil rights is a daily pursuit.

This fight beckons us to be arm-in-arm, to lean on one another, to organize with our neighbors, and to see that our future is one of hope. One where we demand equal access and resources for all.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 28, 2023 at 04:21PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/UyHrIO3

ACLU: Texas’ Attempt to Tear Parents and Trans Youth Apart, One Year Later

Texas’ Attempt to Tear Parents and Trans Youth Apart, One Year Later

One year ago, transgender people and our families reacted in horror as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott directed the state’s family policing agency, the Texas Department of Family Protective Services (DFPS), to begin investigating parents with transgender teens. This directive threatened a vulnerable group of young people with being removed from their parent’s custody and put into the state’s overcrowded and deeply problematic foster care system.

The move by Abbott was a stark escalation in the ongoing fight to erase transgender people from public life and prompted outrage from across the state and the country. District attorneys from across Texas said they would refuse to pursue prosecutions against these families, and educators, health care providers, and child welfare experts roundly condemned the directive. DFPS, already facing thousands of resignations, saw another exodus of employees after the announcement.

Taking Greg Abbott to Court

In the year since, the ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, and Lambda Legal filed two legal challenges against the directive and the investigations. Those challenges sought to protect Texas families and transgender teens by blocking the state from enforcing the governor’s order against them.

The first, Doe v. Abbott, was filed on behalf of an employee at DFPS, her husband, and their transgender teen, as well as a psychologist who provides mental health services and support to transgender youth. The state opened an investigation into Jane Doe and her family almost immediately after the governor issued his directive. Jane was reported and investigated by her own employer and placed on administrative leave as her family feared their child being ripped away from them. On March 11, 2022, a state court found the governor’s directive held no legal weight and blocked the state from investigating our plaintiffs. The Texas Supreme Court later affirmed both points while narrowing the relief to the specific parties in the case.

American Civil Liberties Union

Doe v. Abbott | American Civil Liberties Union

A second lawsuit was filed in June 2022 on behalf of three additional families with transgender youth and PFLAG National, which provides peer support, education, and advocacy for LGBTQ+ people and their parents, guardians, and allies. A Texas state court granted relief for all three families targeted by DFPS — and expanded that relief to cover PFLAG’s 17 chapters and 600 members statewide in September 2022.

Court orders blocking investigations into PFLAG members are still in effect while these cases continue on appeal with a trial scheduled for the fall.

Texas' War on Transgender Youth

While both cases are ongoing, the state continues to persecute transgender youth and their families under Abbott’s directive. Transgender students are being pulled from classrooms and interrogated about their health care and other personal information. Teachers are stalking social media for evidence a student might be trans and turning their families into DFPS. Many families are even making the difficult and arduous choice to relocate their lives outside of Texas altogether, finding new homes, jobs, and schools for themselves and their loved ones. All of this comes at a time when Texas lawmakers have introduced a record number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills, with the vast majority targeted at transgender youth.

This targeting of supportive parents of transgender youth by an agency meant to protect children shocked many across the country. But in truth, agencies like DFPS already threaten Black, immigrant, Indigenous, and low-income families across the country.

As a joint report by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch recently found, conditions of poverty, such as a family’s struggle to pay rent or maintain housing, are often misconstrued by these agencies as neglect and interpreted as evidence of an inability and lack of fitness to parent. This results in over half of Black families becoming the target of a family policing investigation. LGBTQ+ youth are already overrepresented in the nation’s foster care system, where they are more likely to experience abuse and be forced through conversion therapy that attempts to “make” them cisgender and heterosexual.

How to Help

Abbott’s directive represented the expansion of both a political war on transgender youth and the mandate of a family policing system that already endangers families and youth alike. The best way to avoid future attempts to weaponize these agencies for explicitly political purposes is to prevent their abuses altogether, including by fighting for fundamental changes to how states approach child welfare. Our legal advocates will continue our challenge against this directive. At the same time, we urge lawmakers to take immediate measures to strengthen and support families and communities to prevent child maltreatment without subjecting them to surveillance and regulation.

In Texas, the state legislature has introduced a slate of bills attempting to criminalize essential health care for transgender youth and the families and doctors who support them. Texas residents can sign up to take action against these proposed bans and many more bills threatening the fundamental rights of transgender Texans. If you or someone you know needs information and resources for transgender young people in Texas, please visit txtranskids.org to learn more about your rights, how to get legal help, and how to defend yourself against this lawless incursion into your family’s life.

What you can do:

2023 State Legislative action pledge

Sign up now

Published February 24, 2023 at 01:03AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/tBm2Mch

ACLU: Texas’ Attempt to Tear Parents and Trans Youth Apart, One Year Later

Texas’ Attempt to Tear Parents and Trans Youth Apart, One Year Later

One year ago, transgender people and our families reacted in horror as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott directed the state’s family policing agency, the Texas Department of Family Protective Services (DFPS), to begin investigating parents with transgender teens. This directive threatened a vulnerable group of young people with being removed from their parent’s custody and put into the state’s overcrowded and deeply problematic foster care system.

The move by Abbott was a stark escalation in the ongoing fight to erase transgender people from public life and prompted outrage from across the state and the country. District attorneys from across Texas said they would refuse to pursue prosecutions against these families, and educators, health care providers, and child welfare experts roundly condemned the directive. DFPS, already facing thousands of resignations, saw another exodus of employees after the announcement.

Taking Greg Abbott to Court

In the year since, the ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, and Lambda Legal filed two legal challenges against the directive and the investigations. Those challenges sought to protect Texas families and transgender teens by blocking the state from enforcing the governor’s order against them.

The first, Doe v. Abbott, was filed on behalf of an employee at DFPS, her husband, and their transgender teen, as well as a psychologist who provides mental health services and support to transgender youth. The state opened an investigation into Jane Doe and her family almost immediately after the governor issued his directive. Jane was reported and investigated by her own employer and placed on administrative leave as her family feared their child being ripped away from them. On March 11, 2022, a state court found the governor’s directive held no legal weight and blocked the state from investigating our plaintiffs. The Texas Supreme Court later affirmed both points while narrowing the relief to the specific parties in the case.

American Civil Liberties Union

Doe v. Abbott | American Civil Liberties Union

A second lawsuit was filed in June 2022 on behalf of three additional families with transgender youth and PFLAG National, which provides peer support, education, and advocacy for LGBTQ+ people and their parents, guardians, and allies. A Texas state court granted relief for all three families targeted by DFPS — and expanded that relief to cover PFLAG’s 17 chapters and 600 members statewide in September 2022.

Court orders blocking investigations into PFLAG members are still in effect while these cases continue on appeal with a trial scheduled for the fall.

Texas' War on Transgender Youth

While both cases are ongoing, the state continues to persecute transgender youth and their families under Abbott’s directive. Transgender students are being pulled from classrooms and interrogated about their health care and other personal information. Teachers are stalking social media for evidence a student might be trans and turning their families into DFPS. Many families are even making the difficult and arduous choice to relocate their lives outside of Texas altogether, finding new homes, jobs, and schools for themselves and their loved ones. All of this comes at a time when Texas lawmakers have introduced a record number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills, with the vast majority targeted at transgender youth.

This targeting of supportive parents of transgender youth by an agency meant to protect children shocked many across the country. But in truth, agencies like DFPS already threaten Black, immigrant, Indigenous, and low-income families across the country.

As a joint report by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch recently found, conditions of poverty, such as a family’s struggle to pay rent or maintain housing, are often misconstrued by these agencies as neglect and interpreted as evidence of an inability and lack of fitness to parent. This results in over half of Black families becoming the target of a family policing investigation. LGBTQ+ youth are already overrepresented in the nation’s foster care system, where they are more likely to experience abuse and be forced through conversion therapy that attempts to “make” them cisgender and heterosexual.

How to Help

Abbott’s directive represented the expansion of both a political war on transgender youth and the mandate of a family policing system that already endangers families and youth alike. The best way to avoid future attempts to weaponize these agencies for explicitly political purposes is to prevent their abuses altogether, including by fighting for fundamental changes to how states approach child welfare. Our legal advocates will continue our challenge against this directive. At the same time, we urge lawmakers to take immediate measures to strengthen and support families and communities to prevent child maltreatment without subjecting them to surveillance and regulation.

In Texas, the state legislature has introduced a slate of bills attempting to criminalize essential health care for transgender youth and the families and doctors who support them. Texas residents can sign up to take action against these proposed bans and many more bills threatening the fundamental rights of transgender Texans. If you or someone you know needs information and resources for transgender young people in Texas, please visit txtranskids.org to learn more about your rights, how to get legal help, and how to defend yourself against this lawless incursion into your family’s life.

What you can do:

2023 State Legislative action pledge

Sign up now

Published February 23, 2023 at 07:33PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/noEFqBS

ACLU: Is This the End of the Internet As We Know It?

Is This the End of the Internet As We Know It?

Two pending Supreme Court cases interpreting a 1996 law could drastically alter the way we interact online. That law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, is often disparaged as a handout to Big Tech, but that misses the point. Section 230 promotes free speech by removing strong incentives for platforms to limit what we can say and do online.

Under Section 230, platforms generally may not be held liable for the content posted by users. Without this protection, important speech such as communication about abortion, especially in states where abortion is outlawed, could be silenced. Movements like #MeToo and #BLM may not have been able to catch on if platforms were worried that they’d be sued, even improperly, for defamation or other claims. People could have found their voices censored, especially when talking about ideas that are under political attack today: race and racism, sexuality, and gender justice. The internet as we know it would be a very different place.

Section 230 promotes free speech by removing strong incentives for platforms to limit what we can say and do online.

Before Section 230, companies cultivating online communities were legally responsible for what their users posted, while those that exercised no editorial control were not. The natural consequence of this was that some platforms would choose to limit conversations to only the most uncontroversial matters, while other platforms had an incentive to host free-for-all spaces, tolerating pornographic, abusive, or other unwanted content to avoid any legal responsibility. Congress wisely recognized that the internet could be so much more than this and passed Section 230.

While Section 230 immunizes online platforms from legal liability for the posts, comments, and other messages contributed by their users, it does not free platforms from liability for content that violates federal criminal law, intellectual property rights, or a few other categories of legal obligations. Section 230 also does not apply to platform conduct that falls outside the publication of others’ content, such as discriminatory targeting of ads for housing or employment on the basis of race or sex.

If we lose Section 230, we stand to lose the internet as we know it.

It also does not provide a safe harbor for platforms that provide advertisers with tools designed to target ads to users based on sex, race, or other statuses protected by civil rights laws. Nor does it provide immunity from claims that a platform’s own ad delivery algorithms are discriminatory. The ACLU recently explained why this conduct falls outside the scope of Section 230. In these scenarios, where the alleged basis for liability is the platform’s own discrimination, the ACLU seeks to stop platforms from misusing or misinterpreting Section 230 immunity.

Today, the internet enables people to communicate with one another at a previously impossible scale. It is one of the “principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge” as the Supreme Court recently recognized in Packingham v. North Carolina. At the same time, platforms are free to manage user content, taking down problematic posts containing nudity, racist slurs, spam, or fraudulent information.

This term, the Supreme Court will consider the scope of the law’s protections in Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google. These cases were brought by family members of U.S. citizens who were killed by ISIS in terrorist attacks. The suits allege that platforms, including Twitter and Google’s YouTube, are “aiding and abetting” ISIS attacks by failing to adequately block or remove content promoting terrorism.

But Twitter and YouTube did not, and do not, have any intention of promoting terrorism. The videos plaintiffs identified were posted by ISIS operatives and, while lawful, violate Twitter’s and YouTube’s terms of service. The companies would have removed them if they were flagged. There is also no allegation that the people behind the terrorist attack were inspired by these videos.

American Civil Liberties Union

Communications Decency Act Section 230 | American Civil Liberties Union

To protect our rights and liberties, we urge the Supreme Court to ensure that online platforms are free to recommend content without legal risk.

The ACLU’s amicus brief in Twitter v. Taamneh asserts that imposing liability under these circumstances would improperly chill speech. Of course, a platform could promote terrorism through its policies and actions. But imposing liability merely for hosting content without malicious intent or specific knowledge that any specific post furthered a particular criminal act would squelch online speech and association. It already happens, such as when Instagram confused a post about a landmark mosque with one about a terrorist group. These relatively common errors would become the new norm.

The Gonzalez case asks a different question: whether Section 230 immunity applies to amplified content. The plaintiffs argue that when platforms suggest content to users, such as in “Up Next,” “You Might Like,” or “Recommended For You,” those suggestions are not protected by Section 230. So, while a provider would remain immunized for merely hosting content, it would be responsible for highlighting it.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the Gonzalez case to explain why online platforms have no choice but to prioritize some content over others, and should be immune from liability for those choices when they include content from a third party. Given the vast amount of material posted every minute, platforms must select and organize content in order to display it in any usable manner. There is no way to visually present information to app or webpage users without making editorial choices that are, at the very least, implicit “recommendations.”

Moreover, organizing and recommending content helps us to find what we are looking for, to receive and create information, to reach an audience and to build community. If Section 230 doesn’t apply to this kind of content organization, platforms will be incentivized to present information in a disorganized jumble and will feel pressure to include only the most innocuous content that lawyers can be certain wouldn’t inspire anyone to sue.

Section 230 has allowed public expression on the internet to flourish. It has created space for social movements; enabled platforms to host the speech of activists and organizers; and allowed users and content creators on sites like Instagram, TikTok, and Twitch to reach an audience and make a living. Without it, the internet will be a far less hospitable place for human creativity, education, politics, and collaboration. If we lose Section 230, we stand to lose the internet as we know it.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 23, 2023 at 01:54AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/OqE9ikb

ACLU: Is This the End of the Internet As We Know It?

Is This the End of the Internet As We Know It?

Two pending Supreme Court cases interpreting a 1996 law could drastically alter the way we interact online. That law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, is often disparaged as a handout to Big Tech, but that misses the point. Section 230 promotes free speech by removing strong incentives for platforms to limit what we can say and do online.

Under Section 230, platforms generally may not be held liable for the content posted by users. Without this protection, important speech such as communication about abortion, especially in states where abortion is outlawed, could be silenced. Movements like #MeToo and #BLM may not have been able to catch on if platforms were worried that they’d be sued, even improperly, for defamation or other claims. People could have found their voices censored, especially when talking about ideas that are under political attack today: race and racism, sexuality, and gender justice. The internet as we know it would be a very different place.

Section 230 promotes free speech by removing strong incentives for platforms to limit what we can say and do online.

Before Section 230, companies cultivating online communities were legally responsible for what their users posted, while those that exercised no editorial control were not. The natural consequence of this was that some platforms would choose to limit conversations to only the most uncontroversial matters, while other platforms had an incentive to host free-for-all spaces, tolerating pornographic, abusive, or other unwanted content to avoid any legal responsibility. Congress wisely recognized that the internet could be so much more than this and passed Section 230.

While Section 230 immunizes online platforms from legal liability for the posts, comments, and other messages contributed by their users, it does not free platforms from liability for content that violates federal criminal law, intellectual property rights, or a few other categories of legal obligations. Section 230 also does not apply to platform conduct that falls outside the publication of others’ content, such as discriminatory targeting of ads for housing or employment on the basis of race or sex.

If we lose Section 230, we stand to lose the internet as we know it.

It also does not provide a safe harbor for platforms that provide advertisers with tools designed to target ads to users based on sex, race, or other statuses protected by civil rights laws. Nor does it provide immunity from claims that a platform’s own ad delivery algorithms are discriminatory. The ACLU recently explained why this conduct falls outside the scope of Section 230. In these scenarios, where the alleged basis for liability is the platform’s own discrimination, the ACLU seeks to stop platforms from misusing or misinterpreting Section 230 immunity.

Today, the internet enables people to communicate with one another at a previously impossible scale. It is one of the “principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge” as the Supreme Court recently recognized in Packingham v. North Carolina. At the same time, platforms are free to manage user content, taking down problematic posts containing nudity, racist slurs, spam, or fraudulent information.

This term, the Supreme Court will consider the scope of the law’s protections in Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google. These cases were brought by family members of U.S. citizens who were killed by ISIS in terrorist attacks. The suits allege that platforms, including Twitter and Google’s YouTube, are “aiding and abetting” ISIS attacks by failing to adequately block or remove content promoting terrorism.

But Twitter and YouTube did not, and do not, have any intention of promoting terrorism. The videos plaintiffs identified were posted by ISIS operatives and, while lawful, violate Twitter’s and YouTube’s terms of service. The companies would have removed them if they were flagged. There is also no allegation that the people behind the terrorist attack were inspired by these videos.

American Civil Liberties Union

Communications Decency Act Section 230 | American Civil Liberties Union

To protect our rights and liberties, we urge the Supreme Court to ensure that online platforms are free to recommend content without legal risk.

The ACLU’s amicus brief in Twitter v. Taamneh asserts that imposing liability under these circumstances would improperly chill speech. Of course, a platform could promote terrorism through its policies and actions. But imposing liability merely for hosting content without malicious intent or specific knowledge that any specific post furthered a particular criminal act would squelch online speech and association. It already happens, such as when Instagram confused a post about a landmark mosque with one about a terrorist group. These relatively common errors would become the new norm.

The Gonzalez case asks a different question: whether Section 230 immunity applies to amplified content. The plaintiffs argue that when platforms suggest content to users, such as in “Up Next,” “You Might Like,” or “Recommended For You,” those suggestions are not protected by Section 230. So, while a provider would remain immunized for merely hosting content, it would be responsible for highlighting it.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the Gonzalez case to explain why online platforms have no choice but to prioritize some content over others, and should be immune from liability for those choices when they include content from a third party. Given the vast amount of material posted every minute, platforms must select and organize content in order to display it in any usable manner. There is no way to visually present information to app or webpage users without making editorial choices that are, at the very least, implicit “recommendations.”

Moreover, organizing and recommending content helps us to find what we are looking for, to receive and create information, to reach an audience and to build community. If Section 230 doesn’t apply to this kind of content organization, platforms will be incentivized to present information in a disorganized jumble and will feel pressure to include only the most innocuous content that lawyers can be certain wouldn’t inspire anyone to sue.

Section 230 has allowed public expression on the internet to flourish. It has created space for social movements; enabled platforms to host the speech of activists and organizers; and allowed users and content creators on sites like Instagram, TikTok, and Twitch to reach an audience and make a living. Without it, the internet will be a far less hospitable place for human creativity, education, politics, and collaboration. If we lose Section 230, we stand to lose the internet as we know it.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 22, 2023 at 08:24PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/5MtYFC0

St. Kitts and Nevis: Technical Assistance Report-Strengthening Core Business Functions Audit Capacity (RTAT)

St. Kitts and Nevis: Technical Assistance Report-Strengthening Core Business Functions Audit Capacity (RTAT)
Published February 22, 2023 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Costa Rica: Technical Assistance Report-Upgrading the Rule-Based Fiscal Framework

Costa Rica: Technical Assistance Report-Upgrading the Rule-Based Fiscal Framework
Published February 22, 2023 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Jordan: Technical Assistance Report-High Level Summary Report - Retail CBDC Exploration

Jordan: Technical Assistance Report-High Level Summary Report - Retail CBDC Exploration
Published February 22, 2023 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

México: Informe de Asistencia Técnica-la Misión de Cuentas Nacionales; FMI, Informe de país No. 23/84; Mayo 2022

México: Informe de Asistencia Técnica-la Misión de Cuentas Nacionales; FMI, Informe de país No. 23/84; Mayo 2022
Published February 21, 2023 at 08:18PM
Read more at imf.org

Uganda: Central Bank Transparency Code Review; IMF Country Report No. 23/86

Uganda: Central Bank Transparency Code Review; IMF Country Report No. 23/86
Published February 17, 2023 at 01:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Kyrgyz Republic: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report

Kyrgyz Republic: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published February 16, 2023 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Kyrgyz Republic: Selected Issues

Kyrgyz Republic: Selected Issues
Published February 16, 2023 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Author George Johnson on Writing Black, Queer — and Banned — Stories

Author George Johnson on Writing Black, Queer — and Banned — Stories

Over the past two years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of books being banned or challenged in school districts across the country. The majority of the stories that are being censored contain LGBTQ storylines and protagonists of color, including All Boys Aren’t Blue, a story about growing up Black and queer in New Jersey and Virginia and one of the top five most banned books in the country. The author, George Johnson, joined At Liberty this week to talk with us about what makes Black queer voices so threatening, the unique power of books, and their resolve to remain true to their story despite the attacks.

You’ve said in prior interviews that you always knew your book was likely to be banned. Why did you think that?

I just saw the landscape of the country we live in, and it seemed obvious to me that someone was going to take issue with my book. I had already seen rumblings around books like The Hate U Give, Dear Martin, and the 1619 Project. So as I was going through my process of writing the book, in my mind, I was like, “Okay, if they’re coming for those books, they’re definitely going to come for mine, too.” I knew the myriad topics I was covering in my book, including racism and anti-Blackness and sexuality, was not going to make a particular group of this country happy.

American Civil Liberties Union

Their Memoir Is One of the Most Banned Books in America | American Civil Liberties Union

George M. Johnson talks about book banning and how we can all show up in the fight against censorship. Listen to the podcast now!

Did that change or shape how you approached writing it?

No, I think it just made me [think], I might as well tell the truth. I might as well go all the way out with it. Because regardless of how I try to write this, frame it, sanitize it — which there were times I did think about sanitizing it — it wouldn’t have mattered. They were going to find issue with this book [anyway]. So it only inspired me to write it in its totality with full vulnerability and transparency.

Many banned authors are among the most well-regarded in American literature. How does it feel to be among the company of your idols?

It’s bittersweet at times. I can’t believe they’re still attacking Black writing after all these years, but yeah, it feels great. When I’ve talked to those who have been in this industry for a long time, they’re like, “If you’re getting banned, you’re probably saying something really, really important, because look at the company you’re with.” And so I do take a lot of pride in it. It would be one thing if [the people trying to ban my book] were actually reading the story, but they’re not reading the story. They read the same four passages at every meeting. They’re always shocked when people bring up other passages and they’re almost like, “What book is that from?” Because [they] actually have never read the book.

What do books give us that other mediums can’t, that makes them such irresistible targets for this kind of censorship?

Books stand the test of time. I think that’s pretty much it. Books are a time capsule. It’s not like a tweet that went viral that you may be able to pull up 10 years later … Toni Morrison’s books from the 70s, the 80s, they are still here. They are still widely being adapted. They’re still being turned into movies and films. When these books come into the world, they don’t go away. And I think that’s also the thing … You can block [students] for maybe two or four years from reading it in high school. But then they exit and can go grab it. Amazon doesn’t go away. It exists in multiple languages. It actually just makes [the book] more irresistible.

Why are queer and Black stories so threatening and therefore so powerful?

Because they are an educational tool that builds empathy between communities of people who never knew that people outside of their bubbles exist. And I think that’s a real fear because Gen Z is the first generation in this country that’s more non-white than white. Generation Z is already identifying nearly 20 percent LGBTQ and they are going to be the next biggest voting bloc, as well as the next future senators, governors, presidents, and CEOs. If you empower them with the knowledge that other people exist outside of them … then they actually want to give equity and equality. I think that’s dangerous in the minds of the older generation of white men who continue to run this country.

What would you say to people who have a story to share but are perhaps reluctant due to the climate that they would be publishing in?

When my ancestors had a story to share, the climate they were published in was extremely dangerous. You had slave narratives where they had to change their names, change some of their locations because of fear of being caught by slave catchers, even if they had moved to cities where slavery had already been abolished. So I think in every period of time in this country, [there have been times when] writing was dangerous. But I don’t think it should stop us from writing and telling our stories. It makes the landscape tough and it does make you more reluctant. But I think if you have a story to tell, you should just trust yourself enough to tell that story.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 16, 2023 at 11:03PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/eFVjxGE

ACLU: Author George Johnson on Writing Black, Queer — and Banned — Stories

Author George Johnson on Writing Black, Queer — and Banned — Stories

Over the past two years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of books being banned or challenged in school districts across the country. The majority of the stories that are being censored contain LGBTQ storylines and protagonists of color, including All Boys Aren’t Blue, a story about growing up Black and queer in New Jersey and Virginia and one of the top five most banned books in the country. The author, George Johnson, joined At Liberty this week to talk with us about what makes Black queer voices so threatening, the unique power of books, and their resolve to remain true to their story despite the attacks.

You’ve said in prior interviews that you always knew your book was likely to be banned. Why did you think that?

I just saw the landscape of the country we live in, and it seemed obvious to me that someone was going to take issue with my book. I had already seen rumblings around books like The Hate U Give, Dear Martin, and the 1619 Project. So as I was going through my process of writing the book, in my mind, I was like, “Okay, if they’re coming for those books, they’re definitely going to come for mine, too.” I knew the myriad topics I was covering in my book, including racism and anti-Blackness and sexuality, was not going to make a particular group of this country happy.

American Civil Liberties Union

Their Memoir Is One of the Most Banned Books in America | American Civil Liberties Union

George M. Johnson talks about book banning and how we can all show up in the fight against censorship. Listen to the podcast now!

Did that change or shape how you approached writing it?

No, I think it just made me [think], I might as well tell the truth. I might as well go all the way out with it. Because regardless of how I try to write this, frame it, sanitize it — which there were times I did think about sanitizing it — it wouldn’t have mattered. They were going to find issue with this book [anyway]. So it only inspired me to write it in its totality with full vulnerability and transparency.

Many banned authors are among the most well-regarded in American literature. How does it feel to be among the company of your idols?

It’s bittersweet at times. I can’t believe they’re still attacking Black writing after all these years, but yeah, it feels great. When I’ve talked to those who have been in this industry for a long time, they’re like, “If you’re getting banned, you’re probably saying something really, really important, because look at the company you’re with.” And so I do take a lot of pride in it. It would be one thing if [the people trying to ban my book] were actually reading the story, but they’re not reading the story. They read the same four passages at every meeting. They’re always shocked when people bring up other passages and they’re almost like, “What book is that from?” Because [they] actually have never read the book.

What do books give us that other mediums can’t, that makes them such irresistible targets for this kind of censorship?

Books stand the test of time. I think that’s pretty much it. Books are a time capsule. It’s not like a tweet that went viral that you may be able to pull up 10 years later … Toni Morrison’s books from the 70s, the 80s, they are still here. They are still widely being adapted. They’re still being turned into movies and films. When these books come into the world, they don’t go away. And I think that’s also the thing … You can block [students] for maybe two or four years from reading it in high school. But then they exit and can go grab it. Amazon doesn’t go away. It exists in multiple languages. It actually just makes [the book] more irresistible.

Why are queer and Black stories so threatening and therefore so powerful?

Because they are an educational tool that builds empathy between communities of people who never knew that people outside of their bubbles exist. And I think that’s a real fear because Gen Z is the first generation in this country that’s more non-white than white. Generation Z is already identifying nearly 20 percent LGBTQ and they are going to be the next biggest voting bloc, as well as the next future senators, governors, presidents, and CEOs. If you empower them with the knowledge that other people exist outside of them … then they actually want to give equity and equality. I think that’s dangerous in the minds of the older generation of white men who continue to run this country.

What would you say to people who have a story to share but are perhaps reluctant due to the climate that they would be publishing in?

When my ancestors had a story to share, the climate they were published in was extremely dangerous. You had slave narratives where they had to change their names, change some of their locations because of fear of being caught by slave catchers, even if they had moved to cities where slavery had already been abolished. So I think in every period of time in this country, [there have been times when] writing was dangerous. But I don’t think it should stop us from writing and telling our stories. It makes the landscape tough and it does make you more reluctant. But I think if you have a story to tell, you should just trust yourself enough to tell that story.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 16, 2023 at 05:33PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/QjhVcy7

Republic of Congo: Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy

Republic of Congo: Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy
Published February 15, 2023 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Guinea-Bissau: Request for a Three-Year Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility-Press Release; and Staff Report

Guinea-Bissau: Request for a Three-Year Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published February 15, 2023 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Saving Black Lives in Pittsburgh, One Call at a Time

Saving Black Lives in Pittsburgh, One Call at a Time

Few people know that paramedic ambulance services as we know them today originated in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the 1960s. And even fewer know that a group of Black men organized and founded the country’s first emergency medical service (EMS). The Pittsburgh-based group, called Freedom House, wrote a training book that still serves as the basis for EMS training to this day, and pioneered life-saving practices in the field. Not everybody knows about this Black-led service that revolutionized emergency response, but I do: I served as a paramedic with Freedom House from 1972 to 1975.

An Alternative to Police as Emergency Responders

I’ll never forget the excitement I felt when I first traveled in an ambulance with its siren blaring, or the feeling of satisfaction when we’d drop patients off at the emergency room and let the doctors take it from there while we moved on to the next call. We were saving lives — Black lives. You see, back then, you had to rely on the police for medical emergencies, and unfortunately, there was not a good relationship between Black residents and the police, so we wouldn’t call them in emergencies. Even if we did call them, they often wouldn’t come to Black neighborhoods, at least not quickly. Freedom House was founded by and for Pittsburgh’s under-served Black community for that reason. And not everybody in Pittsburgh liked it.

The rest of the city’s residents had to rely on the police to respond to all emergency calls. When it came to medical and mental health emergencies, it was clear the police were not the right ones for the job. When police would transport a patient to the hospital, they’d throw them in the back of a police wagon while both officers sat up front. If something happened to you on the way, nobody would notice until you got to the emergency room, when it might be too late. Police didn’t have the medical training we did, and their vehicles didn’t have the equipment ours did — defibrillators, monitors, battery-powered EKGs. Sometimes our ambulances would pass by the police on our way to the hospital, beating them to the same place they were trying to get to.

The police were not equipped to respond to people in mental health crises, either. On one occasion, the police were called on a man screaming at people on the street. I actually knew the man; he was a former paramedic who had fallen on hard times and was suffering from mental health issues. So I got on the scene shortly after the police arrived and managed to calm him down and de-escalate the situation. If the police were left to respond, the outcome would not have been good.

It’s situations like these that show that a critical part of emergency response is compassion and community bonds. It’s easy to throw a person down and handcuff him and take him to jail without actually knowing why that person is acting out. Until first responders start making de-escalation a priority in all cases, then I think we will keep seeing the tragedies we see so often today, when a situation that is mild in nature escalates and a person ends up losing their life.

“It’s situations like these that show that a critical part of emergency response is compassion and community bonds.”

First responders need to see the communities they serve as allies. You need to have compassion and empathy for these communities; you need to build a level of confidence and trust that they will get care when they call you, not trouble.

Disbanding Freedom House

Freedom House ended up being a victim of its own success. When Pittsburgh’s white residents realized the Black community was getting better emergency care than they got from the police, they complained to the mayor. They didn’t want to rely on the police for emergency response. They wanted something like Freedom House. The mayor eventually caved to pressure and disbanded us.

As a consolation prize, the mayor agreed to hire Freedom House paramedics for a new service he started. Like many others, I joined the new EMS, but it was not the same. The new EMS paramedics refused to accept any type of training that we had to undergo. Even on call, I wasn’t allowed to do anything. I couldn’t talk on the radio. I couldn’t examine patients. I couldn’t treat them, nothing. I was the third person on a two-person crew. All the while, the city was buying them brand new vehicles and equipment — the same things that we had invented or put on our truck or tested.

A photo of John Moon

Provided by the author

I almost threw my hands up and said, “Y’all got this, I’ll look someplace else.” But once I realized that the department was trying to prove that we were not qualified to do this kind of work, then I had to rethink my method of operation. I chose to step up my game, and became twice as good.

One time, we walked into a person’s home to find them unconscious, not breathing and with no heartbeat — they were in cardiac arrest, and if we didn’t do anything, the person was going to die. But the crew I was with didn’t know what to do. They didn’t have a clue. So they looked at me and said, “You take over.” I told one crew member to monitor the patient’s oxygen, the other to start CPR, and we ended up saving that person’s life. That wouldn’t have happened if they hadn’t asked me to take charge. From that point on, I decided that I was going to be a little bit more outspoken and take on a more proactive role in day-to-day operations of whichever unit I was working on.

The Erasure of Freedom House

Despite all our success and innovation, Freedom House has become a literal footnote in history. Freedom House published a book in 1977 that is required training for every paramedic in the country to this day. I came across the ninth edition in Tampa one day and flipped through. I read about the greatness of EMS in Miami and Jacksonville and Seattle and whatnot. The only mention of Freedom House is in a footnote saying only that we were a group of Black men that didn’t have an opportunity to get a high school education. What we did from 1967 to 1975 has been swept under the rug, has been forgotten or deleted from history.

“Despite all our success and innovation, Freedom House has become a literal footnote in history.”

That’s why it’s my heart’s desire to make sure that the legacy of Freedom House is made known to everyone in this country, especially members of today’s EMS. If I had my way, our history would be required reading for every EMS paramedic, EMT, and emergency physician in this country. They all need to know where the foundation of EMS began: as an alternative to police, in a Black community, led by Black people.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 15, 2023 at 08:52PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/FK4yRZd

ACLU: Saving Black Lives in Pittsburgh, One Call at a Time

Saving Black Lives in Pittsburgh, One Call at a Time

Few people know that paramedic ambulance services as we know them today originated in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the 1960s. And even fewer know that a group of Black men organized and founded the country’s first emergency medical service (EMS). The Pittsburgh-based group, called Freedom House, wrote a training book that still serves as the basis for EMS training to this day, and pioneered life-saving practices in the field. Not everybody knows about this Black-led service that revolutionized emergency response, but I do: I served as a paramedic with Freedom House from 1972 to 1975.

An Alternative to Police as Emergency Responders

I’ll never forget the excitement I felt when I first traveled in an ambulance with its siren blaring, or the feeling of satisfaction when we’d drop patients off at the emergency room and let the doctors take it from there while we moved on to the next call. We were saving lives — Black lives. You see, back then, you had to rely on the police for medical emergencies, and unfortunately, there was not a good relationship between Black residents and the police, so we wouldn’t call them in emergencies. Even if we did call them, they often wouldn’t come to Black neighborhoods, at least not quickly. Freedom House was founded by and for Pittsburgh’s under-served Black community for that reason. And not everybody in Pittsburgh liked it.

The rest of the city’s residents had to rely on the police to respond to all emergency calls. When it came to medical and mental health emergencies, it was clear the police were not the right ones for the job. When police would transport a patient to the hospital, they’d throw them in the back of a police wagon while both officers sat up front. If something happened to you on the way, nobody would notice until you got to the emergency room, when it might be too late. Police didn’t have the medical training we did, and their vehicles didn’t have the equipment ours did — defibrillators, monitors, battery-powered EKGs. Sometimes our ambulances would pass by the police on our way to the hospital, beating them to the same place they were trying to get to.

The police were not equipped to respond to people in mental health crises, either. On one occasion, the police were called on a man screaming at people on the street. I actually knew the man; he was a former paramedic who had fallen on hard times and was suffering from mental health issues. So I got on the scene shortly after the police arrived and managed to calm him down and de-escalate the situation. If the police were left to respond, the outcome would not have been good.

It’s situations like these that show that a critical part of emergency response is compassion and community bonds. It’s easy to throw a person down and handcuff him and take him to jail without actually knowing why that person is acting out. Until first responders start making de-escalation a priority in all cases, then I think we will keep seeing the tragedies we see so often today, when a situation that is mild in nature escalates and a person ends up losing their life.

“It’s situations like these that show that a critical part of emergency response is compassion and community bonds.”

First responders need to see the communities they serve as allies. You need to have compassion and empathy for these communities; you need to build a level of confidence and trust that they will get care when they call you, not trouble.

Disbanding Freedom House

Freedom House ended up being a victim of its own success. When Pittsburgh’s white residents realized the Black community was getting better emergency care than they got from the police, they complained to the mayor. They didn’t want to rely on the police for emergency response. They wanted something like Freedom House. The mayor eventually caved to pressure and disbanded us.

As a consolation prize, the mayor agreed to hire Freedom House paramedics for a new service he started. Like many others, I joined the new EMS, but it was not the same. The new EMS paramedics refused to accept any type of training that we had to undergo. Even on call, I wasn’t allowed to do anything. I couldn’t talk on the radio. I couldn’t examine patients. I couldn’t treat them, nothing. I was the third person on a two-person crew. All the while, the city was buying them brand new vehicles and equipment — the same things that we had invented or put on our truck or tested.

A photo of John Moon

Provided by the author

I almost threw my hands up and said, “Y’all got this, I’ll look someplace else.” But once I realized that the department was trying to prove that we were not qualified to do this kind of work, then I had to rethink my method of operation. I chose to step up my game, and became twice as good.

One time, we walked into a person’s home to find them unconscious, not breathing and with no heartbeat — they were in cardiac arrest, and if we didn’t do anything, the person was going to die. But the crew I was with didn’t know what to do. They didn’t have a clue. So they looked at me and said, “You take over.” I told one crew member to monitor the patient’s oxygen, the other to start CPR, and we ended up saving that person’s life. That wouldn’t have happened if they hadn’t asked me to take charge. From that point on, I decided that I was going to be a little bit more outspoken and take on a more proactive role in day-to-day operations of whichever unit I was working on.

The Erasure of Freedom House

Despite all our success and innovation, Freedom House has become a literal footnote in history. Freedom House published a book in 1977 that is required training for every paramedic in the country to this day. I came across the ninth edition in Tampa one day and flipped through. I read about the greatness of EMS in Miami and Jacksonville and Seattle and whatnot. The only mention of Freedom House is in a footnote saying only that we were a group of Black men that didn’t have an opportunity to get a high school education. What we did from 1967 to 1975 has been swept under the rug, has been forgotten or deleted from history.

“Despite all our success and innovation, Freedom House has become a literal footnote in history.”

That’s why it’s my heart’s desire to make sure that the legacy of Freedom House is made known to everyone in this country, especially members of today’s EMS. If I had my way, our history would be required reading for every EMS paramedic, EMT, and emergency physician in this country. They all need to know where the foundation of EMS began: as an alternative to police, in a Black community, led by Black people.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 15, 2023 at 03:22PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/Q1z3KJp

ACLU: What to Know About the Abortion Case that Could Ban Mifepristone

What to Know About the Abortion Case that Could Ban Mifepristone

Access to abortion has been decimated in the United States since June when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and took away our right to control our own bodies. Laws banning abortion are now in effect in more than a dozen states, denying more than 20 million people of reproductive age access to essential health care. And as hideous as this is, we know that is only the latest step in their plan to ban abortion and other essential health care nationwide.

The next step in their plan is an attempt to impose a nationwide ban on mifepristone — one of two medications in a regimen that accounts for more than half the abortions in this country. This would be a ban in every state in the nation — even in states where abortion is legal and protected under state law.

“I specifically chose [to have a medication abortion] because I was able to have it in the comfort of my own home with my partner at the time. And medication abortion is really safe and effective.”

Briana, abortion storyteller and activist

Here is how they are trying to do it: Days after the midterms when voters came out overwhelmingly in support of abortion rights, anti-abortion extremists filed a baseless lawsuit seeking an emergency ruling ordering the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to withdraw the approval for mifepristone it issued more than 20 years ago. An adverse ruling here could take mifepristone off the shelves and bar health care professionals from prescribing it in every state in the nation.

In any rational universe, this case would be laughed out of court on multiple grounds. Mifepristone was approved more than two decades ago and has been used by millions of people for early abortion care and to treat miscarriages. Study after study has confirmed its safety and efficacy, and its critical role in abortion and miscarriage care. The claims in this case have no basis in law and distort decades of scientific evidence.

The case was filed by an organization known as Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which has been labeled a hate group, and helped write the Mississippi law which the Supreme Court used to overturn Roe v. Wade. They are going so far as to use a 150-year-old anti-obscenity law, the Comstock Act, to argue that it’s illegal to send or receive mifepristone, and any other medication or device used to provide an abortion, through the mail. That’s a wild claim that has never been accepted.

But if these claims are so wild and unprecedented, why are we concerned? Here’s the thing: ADF was able to hand-select their judge and just happened to pick one who, before he was appointed to the bench by President Trump, worked for an organization that represents business owners who discriminate against LGBTQ people and public school employees who coerce students to pray on school grounds.

And since his appointment to the bench, he has issued a series of radical decisions on everything from immigrants’ rights to trans justice to birth control. In fact, the judge has said it was an “open question” whether politicians could make it a crime to use contraception. That’s right — whether states can outlaw birth control. This is the judge who will decide whether mifepristone can remain on the market.

We won’t let this happen without a fight. We’ve been doing everything in our power to increase access to medication abortion and other essential reproductive health care. In recent years, we’ve filed two cases on behalf of leading medical associations, physicians, and reproductive justice advocates, aiming to get rid of the FDA’s medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone. Our lawsuit prompted the FDA to remove some of those barriers and led to its finally permitting people to get the medication from a pharmacy, after consultation with their health care provider, rather than having to travel in person to an abortion clinic.

American Civil Liberties Union

What is Mifepristone and Why is it Essential to Abortion Access? | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union

Here are five facts to know about medication abortion, and why it’s a critical part of our fight for abortion access.

As this case develops, we’ll continue working with government officials and our partners to respond to any ruling that takes away a safe, effective, and common method for medication abortion.

At the same, we continue to fight the state bans. We have blocked bans in Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, and Utah. We are asking the state supreme courts in Kentucky, Georgia, and Florida to step in and block those states’ bans. And earlier this month, we filed a new case in West Virginia challenging provisions of the state’s total abortion ban.

We will not stop fighting until everyone can get the care they need, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much money they have.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 11, 2023 at 02:03AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/lqMxyZS

ACLU: What to Know About the Abortion Case that Could Ban Mifepristone

What to Know About the Abortion Case that Could Ban Mifepristone

Access to abortion has been decimated in the United States since June when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and took away our right to control our own bodies. Laws banning abortion are now in effect in more than a dozen states, denying more than 20 million people of reproductive age access to essential health care. And as hideous as this is, we know that is only the latest step in their plan to ban abortion and other essential health care nationwide.

The next step in their plan is an attempt to impose a nationwide ban on mifepristone — one of two medications in a regimen that accounts for more than half the abortions in this country. This would be a ban in every state in the nation — even in states where abortion is legal and protected under state law.

“I specifically chose [to have a medication abortion] because I was able to have it in the comfort of my own home with my partner at the time. And medication abortion is really safe and effective.”

Briana, abortion storyteller and activist

Here is how they are trying to do it: Days after the midterms when voters came out overwhelmingly in support of abortion rights, anti-abortion extremists filed a baseless lawsuit seeking an emergency ruling ordering the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to withdraw the approval for mifepristone it issued more than 20 years ago. An adverse ruling here could take mifepristone off the shelves and bar health care professionals from prescribing it in every state in the nation.

In any rational universe, this case would be laughed out of court on multiple grounds. Mifepristone was approved more than two decades ago and has been used by millions of people for early abortion care and to treat miscarriages. Study after study has confirmed its safety and efficacy, and its critical role in abortion and miscarriage care. The claims in this case have no basis in law and distort decades of scientific evidence.

The case was filed by an organization known as Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which has been labeled a hate group, and helped write the Mississippi law which the Supreme Court used to overturn Roe v. Wade. They are going so far as to use a 150-year-old anti-obscenity law, the Comstock Act, to argue that it’s illegal to send or receive mifepristone, and any other medication or device used to provide an abortion, through the mail. That’s a wild claim that has never been accepted.

But if these claims are so wild and unprecedented, why are we concerned? Here’s the thing: ADF was able to hand-select their judge and just happened to pick one who, before he was appointed to the bench by President Trump, worked for an organization that represents business owners who discriminate against LGBTQ people and public school employees who coerce students to pray on school grounds.

And since his appointment to the bench, he has issued a series of radical decisions on everything from immigrants’ rights to trans justice to birth control. In fact, the judge has said it was an “open question” whether politicians could make it a crime to use contraception. That’s right — whether states can outlaw birth control. This is the judge who will decide whether mifepristone can remain on the market.

We won’t let this happen without a fight. We’ve been doing everything in our power to increase access to medication abortion and other essential reproductive health care. In recent years, we’ve filed two cases on behalf of leading medical associations, physicians, and reproductive justice advocates, aiming to get rid of the FDA’s medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone. Our lawsuit prompted the FDA to remove some of those barriers and led to its finally permitting people to get the medication from a pharmacy, after consultation with their health care provider, rather than having to travel in person to an abortion clinic.

American Civil Liberties Union

What is Mifepristone and Why is it Essential to Abortion Access? | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union

Here are five facts to know about medication abortion, and why it’s a critical part of our fight for abortion access.

As this case develops, we’ll continue working with government officials and our partners to respond to any ruling that takes away a safe, effective, and common method for medication abortion.

At the same, we continue to fight the state bans. We have blocked bans in Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, and Utah. We are asking the state supreme courts in Kentucky, Georgia, and Florida to step in and block those states’ bans. And earlier this month, we filed a new case in West Virginia challenging provisions of the state’s total abortion ban.

We will not stop fighting until everyone can get the care they need, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much money they have.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 10, 2023 at 08:33PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ql1ebHL

ACLU: What to Know About the Abortion Case that Could Ban Mifepristone

What to Know About the Abortion Case that Could Ban Mifepristone

Access to abortion has been decimated in the United States since June when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and took away our right to control our own bodies. Laws banning abortion are now in effect in more than a dozen states, denying more than 20 million people of reproductive age access to essential health care. And as hideous as this is, we know that is only the latest step in their plan to ban abortion and other essential health care nationwide.

The next step in their plan is an attempt to impose a nationwide ban on mifepristone — one of two medications in a regimen that accounts for more than half the abortions in this country. This would be a ban in every state in the nation — even in states where abortion is legal and protected under state law.

In any rational universe, this case would be laughed out of court on multiple grounds. Mifepristone was approved more than two decades ago and has been used by millions of people for early abortion care and to treat miscarriages. Study after study has confirmed its safety and efficacy, and its critical role in abortion and miscarriage care. The claims in this case have no basis in law and distort decades of scientific evidence.

American Civil Liberties Union

What is Mifepristone and Why is it Essential to Abortion Access? | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union

Here are five facts to know about medication abortion, and why it’s a critical part of our fight for abortion access.

The case was filed by an organization known as Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which has been labeled a hate group, and helped write the Mississippi law which the Supreme Court used to overturn Roe v. Wade. They are going so far as to use a 150-year-old anti-obscenity law, the Comstock Act, to argue that it’s illegal to send or receive mifepristone, and any other medication or device used to provide an abortion, through the mail. That’s a wild claim that has never been accepted.

But if these claims are so wild and unprecedented, why are we concerned? Here’s the thing: ADF was able to hand-select their judge and just happened to pick one who, before he was appointed to the bench by President Trump, worked for an organization that represents business owners who discriminate against LGBTQ people and public school employees who coerce students to pray on school grounds.

And since his appointment to the bench, he has issued a series of radical decisions on everything from immigrants’ rights to trans justice to birth control. In fact, the judge has said it was an “open question” whether politicians could make it a crime to use contraception. That’s right — whether states can outlaw birth control. This is the judge who will decide whether mifepristone can remain on the market.

We won’t let this happen without a fight. We’ve been doing everything in our power to increase access to medication abortion and other essential reproductive health care. In recent years, we’ve filed two cases on behalf of leading medical associations, physicians, and reproductive justice advocates, aiming to get rid of the FDA’s medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone. Our lawsuit prompted the FDA to remove some of those barriers and led to its finally permitting people to get the medication from a pharmacy, after consultation with their health care provider, rather than having to travel in person to an abortion clinic.

As this case develops, we’ll continue working with government officials and our partners to respond to any ruling that takes away a safe, effective, and common method for medication abortion.

At the same, we continue to fight the state bans. We have blocked bans in Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, and Utah. We are asking the state supreme courts in Kentucky, Georgia, and Florida to step in and block those states’ bans. And earlier this month, we filed a new case in West Virginia challenging provisions of the state’s total abortion ban.

We will not stop fighting until everyone can get the care they need, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much money they have.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 11, 2023 at 02:03AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/7m1CVUW