Testing: February 2024

Thursday 29 February 2024

ACLU: A Teenager’s Fight Against Idaho’s Harmful Ban on Gender-Affirming Healthcare

A Teenager’s Fight Against Idaho’s Harmful Ban on Gender-Affirming Healthcare

Two transgender adolescents and their families are challenging Idaho’s 2023 law, HB 71, which criminalizes gender-affirming medical care for trans youth. Signed by Governor Brad Little, HB 71 prohibits widely accepted treatments for gender dysphoria, despite their endorsement by leading medical organizations like the American Medical Association. In a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and legal firms, plaintiffs argue that the law violates constitutional rights. The law bans puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and certain surgeries for transgender youth, threatening medical providers with felony charges and up to 10 years in prison.

In February 2023, Idaho filed an application to the Supreme Court of the United States for a partial stay against an injunction currently blocking enforcement of HB 71. Jane Doe, a 17-year-old transgender girl living in Idaho and plaintiff in the case alongside her parents, shares her story.

All I Want is to Just Be a Teen

Despite everything, I know I’m lucky. Despite having to watch as politicians in my home state of Idaho and across the country spread lies targeted at transgender youth like me, I know I’m blessed with a family that loves me, friends that support me, and a school that protects my right to be treated like every other student. Despite my governor signing a law threatening to put my doctors in prison just for providing me with medical care I need, I know I’m lucky to have those doctors who, with the support of my parents, have helped me get the hormone therapy I need to address my gender dysphoria, which had been making my life unbearable. And despite needing to join a federal lawsuit against that law that threatens to uproot my entire life and family, I know my parents and my siblings would do anything to protect me no matter what.

As a 17-year-old girl, I haven’t even graduated high school. I should be planning for college, hanging out with my friends, and playing video games with my brother. Instead, politicians in my state have forced me to go to court to stop them from denying me the medical care my doctors, my parents, and I all know has saved my life. Now, that fight is at the Supreme Court where the Idaho Attorney General has asked the court to intervene and allow the ban on gender-affirming medical care to go into effect while the case goes forward. I do not want to be doing this. I just want to be a teenager and continue receiving the healthcare that has made the life I am now living possible.

Poe v. Labrador

A 2023 Idaho law criminalizing gender-affirming medical is being challenged in federal court by two transgender adolescents and their families.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

For as long as I can remember, I knew that something felt off about living as a boy. I have always naturally related to other girls, felt the most like myself around other girls, and had similar interests as other girls. When I was younger, I did not have the words to express my feelings related to my gender identity or being transgender. But I knew it even before I knew the words for it. When I would play “make believe” with my friends, I was always a girl character. When I would play video games, I would always choose a girl avatar. My mom and dad even told me that, when I was little and my mom was pregnant with my younger sibling, I would lie down and place a doll on my stomach and tell them that I wanted to be a mom.

When I started middle school and my body started changing, the sense that something was “off” gradually became a devastating level of distress. My mental health began to deteriorate as the changes to my body made me look more like my older brother and less like the girl I knew myself to be. I avoided anything social and my grades began to fall. There were times that I simply just did not want to exist because the physical changes to my body were trapping me in an existence I knew was causing me immense mental pain.

Family, Friends and Community

At 14, I shared these feelings with my parents who, by then, could tell something was gravely wrong. Without hesitation, they told me they loved me, would always love me, and just wanted me to be happy and healthy no matter what. Soon after, I started “socially transitioning”–I started going by a new name at home and at school and my friends began using feminine pronouns to refer to me. I wore a feminine hairstyle and I started wearing girls’ clothes. I told my mom I wanted to wear makeup and, as part of how she supported me when I asked for her help, she taught me about makeup and how to apply it.

All of this helped my gender dysphoria, but I was still experiencing male puberty, which was causing significant physical changes to my body that I could not hide or cover up with makeup or clothes. The changes to my body caused me so much pain that sometimes I wished I did not even exist. My parents took me to see our family doctor, a pediatrician who’s known me all my life.

“From the moment you were born,” my doctor told me, “my job has been to make sure you’re healthy and happy, and this doesn’t change anything.” She referred us to a specialist with expertise in gender dysphoria and I started seeing a therapist. The specialist evaluated me, including an extensive conversation about my struggles with my gender. He also provided my parents and me information about gender affirming medical care, including the potential risks, and options to preserve fertility. At 15 and with my mom and dad’s support, I started medication that prevented further changes to my body from puberty, causing immediate relief to my anxiety and giving me much-needed hope. A few months later, I started estrogen, which has allowed me to go through puberty consistent with my gender identity.

“It’s hard to overstate how impactful gender-affirming medical care has been for me.”

It’s hard to overstate how impactful gender-affirming medical care has been for me. Before treatment, I was isolating myself, depressed, anxious, and I regularly felt trapped and scared. I could not see a future for myself. I am so grateful that when I told my parents about what I was experiencing, they listened to me, trusted me, and took me to providers who could give me the gender-affirming health care that I needed to be who I am. Combined with the support of my friends and school, the love and support I’ve received from my family is what every transgender kid needs and deserves.

At the start of 2023, the Idaho State Legislature began debating HB 71, a law that would ban my medical care and even threaten to put my doctors in prison for the “crime” of supporting me. It was both terrifying and infuriating to watch as something so important to me and my life was debated by people who obviously didn’t know anything about us. They didn’t seem to care at all about all the testimonies from parents like mine, the expertise of doctors like mine, and the pleas from trans kids like me begging the state not to take away the care that has saved my life and the lives of so many others. When Governor Brad Little signed the law, my parents and I were terrified for our future.

When HB 71 passed, my parents talked to my siblings and me about trying to travel out of state for care or selling our house and leaving Idaho-the only home I’ve ever known. Having to move would mean losing my friends, my family, my home, my community, my school–everything that I have always known.

I don’t want politicians trying to control my body, my life, and my family’s lives. And I don’t want any other trans kids to be faced with the same. I’m so fortunate to have the support I have-especially when so many trans kids are denied the same opportunity to thrive–and I wake up every day thankful for the love of my parents and my siblings. But if the Supreme Court allows this law to take effect, my family and my doctors understand that this health care is so central to my well-being that not receiving it is not an option. I ask that the Court please help me and my family. Please do not let my health care be taken away.

What you can do:

Protect Trans Care Now

Send your message

Published February 29, 2024 at 08:53PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/6wCSB0z

ACLU: A Teenager’s Fight Against Idaho’s Harmful Ban on Gender-Affirming Healthcare

A Teenager’s Fight Against Idaho’s Harmful Ban on Gender-Affirming Healthcare

All I Want is to Just Be a Teen

Poe v. Labrador

A 2023 Idaho law criminalizing gender-affirming medical is being challenged in federal court by two transgender adolescents and their families.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

Family, Friends and Community

“It’s hard to overstate how impactful gender-affirming medical care has been for me.”

What you can do:

Protect Trans Care Now

Send your message

Published March 1, 2024 at 02:23AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/WtIT3Of

Republic of Kazakhstan: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Detailed Assessment of Observance of the Basel Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision

Republic of Kazakhstan: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Detailed Assessment of Observance of the Basel Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision
Published February 29, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Tuesday 27 February 2024

ACLU: Arkansas Wants to Unconstitutionally “Card” People Before They Use Social Media

Arkansas Wants to Unconstitutionally “Card” People Before They Use Social Media

Published August 1, 2023 at 11:18PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/JPt13mi

ACLU: A Religious Public Charter School in Oklahoma? Not on Our Watch.

A Religious Public Charter School in Oklahoma? Not on Our Watch.

Published July 31, 2023 at 09:49PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/Bl1tSEQ

ACLU: A Religious Public Charter School in Oklahoma? Not on Our Watch.

A Religious Public Charter School in Oklahoma? Not on Our Watch.

Published July 31, 2023 at 05:19PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/duKRw7y

British Virgin Islands: Detailed Assessment Report on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism

British Virgin Islands: Detailed Assessment Report on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism
Published February 27, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Thursday 22 February 2024

Cameroon: Request for an Arrangement under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Cameroon

Cameroon: Request for an Arrangement under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Cameroon
Published February 22, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Challenging the Racist Death Penalty in North Carolina

Challenging the Racist Death Penalty in North Carolina

With his white handlebar mustache, Levon “Bo” Jones was a striking and unmistakable presence. Mr. Jones, a Black man from Duplin County, North Carolina, was wrongfully convicted in 1993 and sentenced to death. After 14 years on death row, Mr. Jones, who had always maintained his innocence, was exonerated and released in 2008. We were among the lawyers working with Mr. Jones to win his freedom.

In 2009, Mr. Jones was among three death row exonerees — found guilty and sentenced by all-white or nearly all-white juries — who lobbied in support of novel and transformative legislation that would allow people on death row to challenge their convictions if they could show race played a significant factor in their prosecution. Out of that effort, the state legislature passed the North Carolina Racial Justice Act (RJA).

The RJA was a historic and overdue piece of legislation that sought to rectify long standing racial injustices in death penalty cases. After its momentous passage in 2009, more than 100 people on death row filed RJA claims, challenging their convictions. We represented several of these people, bringing some of the first successful cases under the RJA and reducing four people’s sentences from death to life.

Unfortunately, a new conservative majority in the North Carolina Legislature repealed the law four years after it was passed.

But the fight for justice never stopped. After a lengthy legal battle, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled, in 2020, that all lawsuits brought under the RJA before its repeal could still move forward.

That brings us to this month, where, in a landmark hearing, we’ll be back in court arguing on behalf of Hasson Bacote, a Black man who was sentenced to death after the prosecution prevented multiple qualified Black jurors from serving on his jury. He argues that race played an impermissible role in jury selection, not just in his case, but in all death penalty cases in North Carolina.

Pervasive Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection

We will come to court with statistical, case specific, and historical evidence that racial discrimination tainted jury selection in Mr. Bacote’s case, in Johnston County (where Mr. Bacote was prosecuted), and the entire state.

In Mr. Bacote’s case, the prosecution struck three times more Black prospective jurors than white prospective jurors. In Johnston County, prosecutors struck prospective jurors of color at nearly twice the rate of white prospective jurors in all capital cases. A similar pattern emerges across the state: in North Carolina capital cases, prosecutors struck Black prospective jurors at nearly twice the rate of white jurors.

North Carolina v. Hasson Bacote

Hasson Bacote, a Black man from Johnston County, is challenging his death sentence under the North Carolina Racial Justice Act.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

How have prosecutors gotten away with this?

In all criminal cases that go to trial, prosecutors and defense attorneys have what are known as “peremptory strikes” — that is, an attorney can remove a certain number of potential jurors for any reason. Often, prosecutors exclude Black jurors on the basis of their race.

Even though the landmark 1986 Supreme Court case, Batson v. Kentucky, prohibited peremptory strikes on the basis of race or gender, unconstitutional juror discrimination persists.

Often, prosecutors offer pretextual — or disingenuous — reasons for excluding Black jurors and other jurors of color. In our previous RJA case, North Carolina v. Robinson, a judge found North Carolina prosecutors excluded Black jurors for pretextual, even irrational, reasons, interrogated Black jurors with invasive questions not posed to white jurors, and struck Black jurors even though they allowed white jurors with similar characteristics to remain in the jury pool.

We even have evidence of overt racism in jury selection which we’ve presented in past RJA cases. One prosecutor wrote in his notes that a Black juror with a criminal record was a “thug” while a white juror with a criminal record was “a fine guy;” a Black juror was described as a “blk wino” while a white juror with a DUI conviction was a “country boy – ok.” In another case, a prosecutor noted on a juror questionnaire that a Black woman was “too dumb.”

Handwritten jury selection notes in which a black candidate was described as a “blk wino.”

The effect of outright or pretextual racial discrimination is ultimately the same: Black prospective jurors are excluded from jury service at greater rates than white prospective jurors, and a person facing capital punishment is judged by a jury not of their peers.

The results of these unrepresentative juries are stark: Since 1990, every Black person facing a capital prosecution in Johnston County has been sentenced to death.

A Question of Democracy

Participation in the jury box is one of the fundamental ways Americans engage with their democracy. Even though the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments conferred citizenship rights and equal protection to Black Americans, the right to serve in a jury remains compromised by racial discrimination. Jury service — like the right to vote — is a question of democracy. Who do we consider part of our community, whose voices matter, who has power.

Levon “Bo” Jones’ voice mattered. Even though he was disenfranchised for the years he was wrongfully convicted, he became a powerful voice for freedom and equal justice. Because of his efforts and the efforts of other Black exonerees — survivors of the racist death penalty and criminal legal system — our client Hasson Bacote will have his day in court on February 26, and the opportunity to win relief for his case, and a ruling that could mean relief for almost all of North Carolina’s death row.

Race has always been at the center of the death penalty. The RJA challenges give North Carolina the rare legal opportunity to confront that shameful fact. In court this month, we will take another step with our client Mr. Bacote to shed light on and rectify the harms that racism has caused in our legal system.

The Racial Justice Act: A Timeline

1977

North Carolina passes the current law authorizing the death penalty. Johnston County removes the KKK billboards that line the highway into Smithfield, the County Seat.

1987

In McCleskey v. Kemp, the Supreme Court majority holds that, despite statistical evidence of racial discrimination in Georgia’s administration of the death penalty, there is no Equal Protection violation because the petitioner, Warren McCleskey, couldn’t show overt racial discrimination occurred in his case.

1988

A federal Racial Justice Act bill is drafted in response to McCleskey. The federal RJA ultimately passed the House of Representatives in 1992 and in 1994, but failed in the Senate.

1998

Kentucky becomes the first state to enact a Racial Justice Act statute.

2007-2008

Three Black men, Jonathan Hoffman, Levon Jones, and Glen Chapman, are exonerated from death row in North Carolina. All three innocent men, wrongfully convicted by all-white or nearly all-white juries, become inspired to help other people wrongfully convicted on the basis of race.

2009

Mr. Jones, Mr. Hoffman, and Mr. Chapman join with Darryl Hunt, another wrongfully convicted person charged with capital murder and later exonerated, to lobby the North Carolina Legislature. North Carolina enacted the Racial Justice Act in August, allowing people on death row to challenge their sentences if they could show race played a significant factor. The North Carolina law is the first law in the country to specify that statistical evidence of discrimination in jury selection and/or jury sentencing is sufficient proof to set aside a death sentence.

2009

Our client, Hasson Bacote, is convicted of felony murder in Johnston County. Like every Black man tried in Johnston County, Mr. Bacote receives the death penalty.

2010

In August, more than 100 people on North Carolina’s death row filed RJA motions. At least 30 of those people were sentenced to death by all-white juries.

2010

In November, control of the North Carolina General Assembly flipped from Democratic control to Republican control. A single Republican donor, Art Pope, was connected to 75 percent of all outside group spending on the race, spending millions on small local campaigns. Some of these groups ran ads deliberately attacking candidates for voting for the Racial Justice Act. Ironically, these ads profiled Henry McCollum, a Black man then on North Carolina’s death row who would ultimately be exonerated.

2012

North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue issued pardons of innocence to the defendants in the Wilmington 10 case on December 31, citing “the dominant role that racism played in jury selection.” The prosecution’s jury selection notes included overt race-based bias, such as a capital B written next to the name of every Black juror, and “KKK good!!” written next to the names of at least six prospective jurors.

2012

The first RJA case in the country is heard by a superior court judge in Cumberland County in North Carolina v. Robinson. The death row petitioner, Marcus Robinson, proved widespread discrimination in jury selection across North Carolina, in Cumberland County, and in his own case. Three other cases were heard in Cumberland County later that year based on similar evidence, and those challengers, Tilmon Golphin, Christina Walters, and Quintel Augustine, also prevailed. The state sought review of these decisions by the North Carolina Supreme Court.

2013

The North Carolina Legislature repealed the Racial Justice Act on June 19 and overrode the governor’s veto.

2015

The North Carolina Supreme Court held that prosecutors should have been given more time to prepare for the Cumberland County RJA hearings, vacated the decisions, and remanded for new cases. This meant that the Robinson and other Cumberland County case orders had no precedential value.

2017

A North Carolina Superior Court dismissed the claims of Mr. Robinson and the other three people in Cumberland County, holding that the legislature’s repeal was retroactive and required dismissal of their cases. The four defendants sought review.

2019

Charles Finch, a Black man, is exonerated from North Carolina’s death row. Mr. Finch is the 12th person exonerated in North Carolina since the death penalty was reinstated in 1973. Eleven of the 12 men exonerated are men of color and 10 are Black men.

2020

In State v. Ramseur, and State v. Burke, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that application of the repeal to bar review of properly-filed RJA claims violated the Ex Post Facto clause of the North Carolina Constitution. This ruling effectively reinstated the more than 100 filed claims by people on death row, including Hasson Bacote.

In State v. Robinson, the Hon. Justice Cheri L. Beasley, the first African-American woman to serve as Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, wrote for the majority in an opinion that cataloged the history of Black citizens’ exclusion from jury service in the United States and North Carolina, and the failure of state appellate courts to confront the problem. The state Supreme Court reinstated the life sentences of Marcus Robinson, Tilmon Golphin, Christina Walters, and Quintel Augustine.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 22, 2024 at 07:05PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/K4ta8vz

ACLU: Challenging the Racist Death Penalty in North Carolina

Challenging the Racist Death Penalty in North Carolina

Unfortunately, a new conservative majority in the North Carolina Legislature repealed the law four years after it was passed.

Pervasive Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection

North Carolina v. Hasson Bacote

Hasson Bacote, a Black man from Johnston County, is challenging his death sentence under the North Carolina Racial Justice Act.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

How have prosecutors gotten away with this?

Even though the landmark 1986 Supreme Court case, Batson v. Kentucky, prohibited peremptory strikes on the basis of race or gender, unconstitutional juror discrimination persists.

The results of these unrepresentative juries are stark: Since 1990, every Black person facing a capital prosecution in Johnston County has been sentenced to death.

A Question of Democracy

The Racial Justice Act: A Timeline

1977

North Carolina passes the current law authorizing the death penalty. Johnston County removes the KKK billboards that line the highway into Smithfield, the County Seat.

1987

1988

A federal Racial Justice Act bill is drafted in response to McCleskey. The federal RJA ultimately passed the House of Representatives in 1992 and in 1994, but failed in the Senate.

1998

Kentucky becomes the first state to enact a Racial Justice Act statute.

2007-2008

2009

Our client, Hasson Bacote, is convicted of felony murder in Johnston County. Like every Black man tried in Johnston County, Mr. Bacote receives the death penalty.

2010

In August, more than 100 people on North Carolina’s death row filed RJA motions. At least 30 of those people were sentenced to death by all-white juries.

2010

2012

2013

The North Carolina Legislature repealed the Racial Justice Act on June 19 and overrode the governor’s veto.

2015

2017

2019

2020

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 23, 2024 at 12:35AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/F1uZIkq

Wednesday 21 February 2024

ACLU: A Plan to Block Trans Health Care in Ohio Was Stopped — But the Fight Isn’t Over

A Plan to Block Trans Health Care in Ohio Was Stopped — But the Fight Isn’t Over

On January 5, Governor DeWine introduced draft rules that, if implemented, would have resulted in thousands of transgender people in Ohio going without the health care they need, and forcing many to move out of their home state — including my friend, Emma. Due to an outpouring of dissent from the trans community, those proposed rules will not go into effect.

For years, politicians across the nation have been pushing legislation that would block critical gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, taking life-saving health care decisions out of the hands of trans people, their doctors, and their families, and putting it in the hands of politicians. Much of this legislation has focused on spreading inaccuracies and stoking fear specifically about care for trans youth. But the Ohio government tried to take it even further. DeWine’s proposed rules were the most extreme regulations on medical treatment for transgender adults anywhere in the United States, and would have prevented children and adults alike from receiving medically-necessary care. These changes were not based in any medical science, and were proposed against the recommendations of every major medical organization in the nation, despite the outcries from the trans community.

Emma and I are both born and raised Ohioans. We have frequently shared our fear and disappointment in the actions of Ohio’s political leaders and how out of touch they are with the wants and needs of Ohio communities. We were both part of the thousands of people who submitted comments in opposition to the opposed rules, and we both know that this is a victory worth celebrating — but also that these planned attacks against the trans community in Ohio are not in the past. I sat down with Emma to talk through what these proposed bans would have meant for her and her trans community, and how we can continue working to defend trans rights in Ohio and across the nation.

Hanna: How would the proposed changes to transgender health care access in Ohio have impacted you? How would they have impacted your friends and other trans people in the state?

Emma: I’ve lived my whole life in Ohio. It’s my home, somewhere I can be myself and be supported by my friends and family. Since the proposed changes were announced, I’ve seen the future I envisioned for myself here change drastically. If trans health care access was restricted for adults, many of us would be forced to move. Friends had told me all the places they’re considering moving to, and others were planning on leaving the country entirely. I know plenty of others, myself included, who want to stay and fight it. It’s hard though. To make it through the day, you have to have some sort of plan about what to do when things get bad. If I am ever forced to [leave], I know I’ll be able to move somewhere and be okay, but not everyone can move; it’s expensive, and it’s daunting to have to find a job somewhere else away from our friends and families.

Hanna: How do the limits on health care for trans youth tie into the proposed restrictions for the care you receive?

Emma: If you’re a trans kid in Ohio, you’re being told that you can’t be who you want to be until you’re an adult. You reach adulthood, and then the state still is typing to put laws in place to limit your access to health care. It’s just cruel because it makes it that much harder to be hopeful as a trans kid. Suicide rates among trans youth are already frighteningly high, and we know how to lower them. This is why we spread mantras like Protect Trans Kids, they’re in an increasingly difficult situation and need support. The proposed changes made me more concerned for trans youth in particular, because I think it would be really difficult to remain hopeful in the face of these extra barriers. You’d have to make it to adulthood, save money not just for the myriad of expenses that are typical for transition, but also to move out of state. To all trans kids, I want you to know that things will get better. It’s up to the rest of us to fight back and make sure we’re providing a future to look forward to for the trans youth of Ohio.

Hanna: What can people do to help, whether they’re in Ohio or wanting to support from afar when these kind of attacks on trans care are introduced by politicians?

Emma: People can do a couple things to show support. First, check in on your trans friends and family. It’s pretty hard on our mental health when laws like this are proposed or passed, even if they’re eventually defeated, and it’s helpful to know that our loved ones are here for us. It is incredibly stressful thinking about how these changes would impact our access to health care. Outside of that, we need help pushing back on the laws themselves. Show up to protests, submit your feedback online, or call your representatives to let them know how you feel about anti-trans legislation. Right now, trans people are looking to our friends to speak up and speak out. We can’t fight this battle alone. If you can, there are many great organizations worth donating to as well, like the ACLU, the ACLU of Ohio, or the TransOhio Emergency Fund, to both push back on harmful legislation and provide trans people with much needed assistance.

The Way Forward for Trans Justice

Last year, states passed a record number of bills restricting health care, athletics, public accommodations, expression, and educational materials for trans people — trans kids, more specifically. With the turn of a new year, the situation continu...

Visit this episode

Hanna: What would it mean for you and your community if DeWine’s proposed changes to trans health care had taken effect?

Emma: It would have been devastating, because we’ve fought for this to be our home. It would have been a very clear announcement that we aren’t welcome here, and that legislators will keep trying to push us out. Not everyone can afford to move to the safety of another state. It’s already a struggle for some trans adults to access medical care, largely because of long wait times. I think these proposed changes would have worsened that issue and placed an unfair burden on trans people that would have negatively affected our physical and mental health. I didn’t believe these changes were an accurate representation of what the people of Ohio wanted, and I’m grateful that with enough awareness, people provided the support we needed to shut down these proposals. It was an immeasurable relief that the proposals were changed, thanks to a massive influx of comments from the community. I think there’s more to be done, it’s easy to fall into a false sense of security now that some provisions have been walked back, but the reality is trans youth is still actively affected and trans adults remain a political target. We need to keep this energy, this outpouring of support, to prevent future attempts by the state against trans rights.

Hanna: How has access to gender-affirming care affected your quality of life?

Emma: Unequivocally, I can say gender-affirming care saved my life. It’s difficult for me to explain what it was like before I came out and had access to gender-affirming care. I had been dangerously depressed for a long time and didn’t have hope that things were going to get better. It felt like I was living someone else’s life, where none of the pieces fit. I think from the outside it seemed like I should have been happy. I had a loving family, a great group of friends, and did well in school. The reality was that I was disconnected from it, and tried desperately to hide how hopeless I felt. I was unaware that there were other people like me, and there were resources to help transition. Luckily, I came out and had support from friends and family. I’m truly happy with my life now, and hopeful for my future. Gender-affirming care isn’t just hormones or surgeries, it’s a whole range of things that might not be the same for everyone. For me, the first thing was seeing a therapist who helped me work through my anxieties related to transitioning, then other medical professionals to start hormone replacement therapy. They made sure I was well informed through every step in the process. It lifted that weight off my shoulders, helped me feel at home in my body. Being happy in your body is fundamental, and because of that, I’m able to find joy in things I didn’t before. The reality was that before, hobbies were just a way to distract myself, and now they’re things I choose to pursue for happiness. I’ve picked up softball, reading, music, and even sewing. I attribute the change in my mental health completely to gender-affirming care, it’s helped me to see myself and life in a new light. Gender-affirming care gave me the hope I needed to continue, and I’m thankful everyday for it.

What you can do:

Protect Trans Care Now

Send your message

Published February 16, 2024 at 02:38AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/JA2TQ0v

ACLU: A Plan to Block Trans Health Care in Ohio Was Stopped — But the Fight Isn’t Over

A Plan to Block Trans Health Care in Ohio Was Stopped — But the Fight Isn’t Over

Hanna: How would the proposed changes to transgender health care access in Ohio have impacted you? How would they have impacted your friends and other trans people in the state?

Hanna: How do the limits on health care for trans youth tie into the proposed restrictions for the care you receive?

Hanna: What can people do to help, whether they’re in Ohio or wanting to support from afar when these kind of attacks on trans care are introduced by politicians?

The Way Forward for Trans Justice

Visit this episode

Hanna: What would it mean for you and your community if DeWine’s proposed changes to trans health care had taken effect?

Hanna: How has access to gender-affirming care affected your quality of life?

What you can do:

Protect Trans Care Now

Send your message

Published February 15, 2024 at 09:08PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/9q78jbE

Tuesday 20 February 2024

Cameroon: Selected Issues

Cameroon: Selected Issues
Published February 20, 2024 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Wednesday 14 February 2024

ACLU: Anti-DEI Efforts Are the Latest Attack on Racial Equity and Free Speech

Anti-DEI Efforts Are the Latest Attack on Racial Equity and Free Speech

First, Donald Trump and right-wing extremists attacked government trainings on racism and sexism. Then the far right tried to censor classroom instruction on racism and sexism. Next, they banned books about BIPOC and LGBTQ lives. Today, the extreme right’s latest attack is aimed at dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.

In 2023, the far right introduced at least 65 bills to limit DEI in higher education in 25 states and the U.S. Congress. Eight bills became law. If this assault on our constitutional rights feels familiar, that’s because it is. It was last seen in 2020 when Trump-aligned politicians fought to pass unconstitutional laws aimed at censoring student and faculty speech about race, racism, sex and sexism. The ACLU challenged these laws in three states, but today, anti-DEI efforts are the new frontier in the fight to end the erasure of marginalized communities.

DEI programs recruit and retain BIPOC, LGBTQ+, and other underrepresented faculty and students to repair decades of discriminatory policies and practices that excluded them from higher education. The far right, however, claims that DEI programs universally promote undeserving people who only advance because they check a box. Anti-DEI activists like Christopher Rufo consistently frame their attack as a strike against “identity politics,” and have weaponized the term “DEI” to reference any ideas and policies they disagree with, especially those that address systemic racism or sexism.

This attack on DEI is part of a larger backlash against racial justice efforts that ignited after the 2020 killings of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor. At the time, workplaces, schools, and other institutions announced plans to expand DEI efforts and to incorporate anti-racism principles in their communities. In response, far-right activists, led by Rufo and supported by right-wing think tanks such as The Manhattan Institute, The Claremont Institute, and The Heritage Foundation, went on the offensive.

Leveraging Fox News and other mainstream media outlets, Rufo and his supporters sought to manufacture hysteria around the inclusion of critical race theory in schools and workplaces. After a 2020 appearance on Fox News where Rufo misrepresented the nature of federal trainings on oppression, white privilege, and intersectionality as indoctrination of critical race theory in our public spaces, Rufo convinced former President Trump to end federal DEI training. Rufo’s goal was to limit discourse, instruction, and research that refuted the false assertion that racism is not real in America – and he succeeded. Just three weeks later, Trump issued Executive Order 13950, which banned federal trainings on systemic racism and sexism. This Executive Order served as the template for most of the educational gag orders, or bills introduced to limit instruction on systemic sexism and racism in 40 states, 20 of which are now law.

The ACLU has consistently opposed efforts to censor classroom instruction on racism and sexism, including in Florida where some of the most egregious attacks on DEI, critical race theory and inclusive education have been mounted. Following the far right’s “anti-wokeism” playbook, in April 2022, Florida Governor Ron Desantis signed the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, which seeks to ban training or instruction on systemic racism and sexism in workplaces, K-12 schools, and higher education. The ACLU, the ACLU of Florida and our co-counsel challenged the law, claiming it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on instructors and students in higher education, and fails to state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable. A federal judge has blocked it from being enforced in public universities across the state.

Lessons Learned from Our Classroom Censorship Win Against Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act

Here’s what the judge’s order could mean for challenges to censorship efforts nationwide.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

Instead of ceasing to censor free speech, the far right pivoted to target DEI programs. For example, Florida passed Senate Bill 266 in April 2023. This law would expand the Stop W.O.K.E. Act’s prohibition on training and instruction on racism and sexism, seeking to eliminate DEI programs and heavily restrict certain college majors related to DEI. Just last month, the Florida State Board of Education moved forward with regulations to limit the use of public funds for DEI efforts in Florida’s 28 state colleges. The State Board also replaced the Principles of Sociology course, which was previously required, with an American History course to avoid “radical woke ideologies.”

Led by the same far-right leaders, including Rufo and various think-tanks, these anti-DEI efforts utilize the same methods as the attack on critical race theory. They represent yet another attempt to re-whitewash America’s history of racial subjugation, and to reverse efforts to pursue racial justice—or any progress at all. Anti-DEI rhetoric has been used to invalidate immunological research supporting the COVID-19 vaccine, conclusions by economists on mass migration, and even the January 6 insurrection. But these false claims are not what DEI is about. By definition equity means levelling the playing field so qualified people from underrepresented backgrounds have a fair chance to succeed. We cannot let a loud fringe movement convince us otherwise.

In its attacks on DEI, the far right undermines not only racial justice efforts, but also violates our right to free speech and free association. Today, the ACLU is determined to push back on anti-DEI efforts just as we fought efforts to censor instruction on systemic racism and sexism from schools.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 15, 2024 at 02:53AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/bXQ4xC3

ACLU: Anti-DEI Efforts Are the Latest Attack on Racial Equity and Free Speech

Anti-DEI Efforts Are the Latest Attack on Racial Equity and Free Speech

Lessons Learned from Our Classroom Censorship Win Against Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act

Here’s what the judge’s order could mean for challenges to censorship efforts nationwide.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 14, 2024 at 09:23PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/JnfOHwY

ACLU: “There Was No One That Looked Like Me:” Why Diversity Matters in the Military

“There Was No One That Looked Like Me:” Why Diversity Matters in the Military

Last year, the Supreme Court overturned its prior holdings on affirmative action, effectively ending race-conscious admissions practices in most colleges and universities and, consequently, restricting the ability of schools to address systemic racial inequalities that persist in higher education. But the court’s decision was left with one exception: military service academies. Now, the same group that brought to the Supreme Court the case that overturned affirmative action, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), is suing the U.S. Naval Academy and West Point, alleging in two separate lawsuits that the military academies’ use of race in their admissions processes is unconstitutional.

Affirmative action at service academies is essential for confronting our military’s discriminatory history, which continues to impact service members of color. The ACLU, the ACLU of Maryland, and NYCLU, along with our partners NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the National Association of Black Military Women, filed two amicus briefs in New York and Maryland in support of affirmative action, highlighting the experiences of people of color, specifically the unique experience of Black women in the military.

We recently spoke with three veterans who are members of the National Association of Black Military Women. They shared insight into their personal experiences and challenges within the military — from facing unachievable uniform requirements to highlighting the importance of representation. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Navy Veteran Sheena Todd - 2010 - 2015

ACLU: Could you tell us about your time in the military and why you decided to join?

Veteran Todd: I was working a few jobs, going to school, and times were tough. This was a way to get out of Detroit and also do something really amazing and scary. It was very important for me to take some time to find myself, grow up a little bit, explore the world, and see what the American dream was about. I’ve always been in jobs that were geared towards service. For me, it was just important to learn to take care of myself and then taking care of others just came naturally.

ACLU: How important is it to have military leadership that represents the diversity of service members?

Veteran Todd: Having a role model, mentorship, and someone who is culturally competent of what African Americans go through, while also allowing others to get some exposure to that type of leadership, is important in addressing discrimination. It definitely affects morale and the cohesion of the group to walk into a room and look around, and no one looks like you at your job, at a hearing, or at a base. It’s also super important when you think about retention and recruitment. If I am not comfortable or I’m not in a place where I feel like I’m in alignment with who I’m surrounded by, it’s really tough. You don’t feel accepted, welcomed, or valued. The other part of this is seeing what’s possible, and being able to learn from each other and what their experiences were. Seeing those positive examples and building credibility and trust with people that are not like you – that exposure opens up your mind.

ACLU: The military imposes certain uniform requirements that can disproportionately impact people of color. Did the uniform requirements affect your time in the military?

Veteran Todd: That was a big deal for me in the military. When it came to uniforms, the regulations were not put in place for us. It was put in place for people with hair that could conform to those regulations. Our hair doesn’t do that. We have to do a little more extra. I was the yeoman that kept instructions in my pocket because they were up for interpretation. I used to get stopped all the time about my hair. There was this one time where I was actually put at attention by a superior. He said I was distracting the sailors and needed to do something about myself. I didn’t have any makeup on, my hair was natural, and I had on overalls and big boots, so I didn’t know what he wanted me to change. I looked around at every other Black girl on that ship; their hair was shaved off. Then I looked at some of our counterparts who had flipped up hair and all this extra stuff. Were they getting pulled to the side? Absolutely not. I’m really glad that they began to change some of those regulations.

Retired Air Force Chief Master Sergeant Sebrena L. Flagg-Briggs - 1986 - 2021

ACLU: Could you tell us about your time in the military and why you decided to join?

Retired Chief Master Sgt. Flagg-Briggs: It was rewarding. It was awesome and it was tough. I joined the military because I wanted to do more for my community. I felt the need to serve others and in my mind, the best way was to serve my country. I would be serving everybody by joining the military.

ACLU: Our amicus highlights that people of color collectively make up as much as 37 percent of the enlisted ranks, but only 14.8 percent of the highest pay grade officers. How do you think this affects the experiences of service members of color?

Retired Chief Master Sgt. Flagg-Briggs: When I first came into the military, there was no one that looked like me in a lot of the rooms that I entered. When you don’t see people in the room that represent you, you don’t feel heard. They don’t understand where we’re coming from or how it makes us feel to not see someone that looks like us in higher rank positions. How can they decide uniform policies like how my hair should be, or how the makeup fits my face, or what color is my natural hair color? Those things came up a lot in the military. It affects morale, and it affects people wanting to join.

A younger photo of Sebrena L. Flagg-Briggs in service.

I was very heavy on joining an organization that promoted diversity because I thought it was important that men, women, Black, white, different nationalities be represented. It gave me a greater understanding of their perspective, and I was able to share my perspective. We were able to gather our thoughts, our differences, and come up with a common solution that would make everybody feel included.

ACLU: Disciplinary hearings affecting service members are reviewed by the military’s own judge panel. How important is it to have leadership that represents the diversity of service members and understands different upbringings?

Retired Chief Master Sgt. Flagg-Briggs: That is extremely important. Sometimes when the decisions are made, it perpetuates in your mind that there’s no way they understand who I am or what I represent, because that opinion doesn’t sound like it is for me. There have been examples where there was one type of solution or punishment that was going to be put upon a person and because I was in the room, I helped them understand that it wasn’t as they saw it. The relief that they got from having me in the room was astounding. Many times I was the only woman of color or the only person of color in the room, and I was always opinionated and spoke for folk that were on the line. That was truly important during my 35 years of service. Rising to the rank of Chief, it made me more aware. It helped me help others to understand why it’s important to get in the room, earn more rank, so that we can be better understood, and we could share our experiences and other folks would understand as well.

Marine Corps Veteran Marnisha Mintlow - 1997 - 2001

ACLU: Could you tell us about your time in the military and why you decided to join?

Veteran Mintlow: When I joined, it was about me getting money for school. But as you’re gaining education and knowledge of what this branch has gone through, the wars it has fought and won for our country, and you built a relationship with the branch, you learn the importance. So then it becomes, I served my country, I did my part, I put my life on the line.

ACLU: The military imposes certain uniform requirements that can disproportionately impact people of color. Did the uniform requirements affect your time in the military?

Veteran Mintlow: It wasn’t necessarily uniforms that were my issue. It was the weight requirement. Once you hit the maximum weight requirement, they will do what’s called a body fat measurement. When they do that for women, they measure our necks, our waists, and hips. I still believe that is not a fair measurement for women of color. In my culture and as a Black woman, the widest part of my body is my hips, and there is nothing I can do about it. There are some things that we cannot fix, and to have that held against me, it negatively impacted my military career. I was at a point in my career where I was supposed to get a meritorious promotion, but did not get it because I was considered overweight by their metrics.

ACLU: Why is it important to have representation in the military?

Veteran Mintlow: It’s important to have a diverse population amongst enlisted members and officers so that people who are not in the military have an opportunity to see themselves in the military. When I wasn’t in the military, every person I saw in the Marine Corps was a man. So while I was at my recruiter’s office, they had a poster on the wall of a Black woman in a blue dress, and I said, I need to see her in real life. When I went to the Military Entrance Processing Station, which is where you do your swearing in and you sign all your paperwork, I met a Black woman. She was my visual. I knew I could do this because she looked like me and she did it. It’s very important to have those role models and those mentors in real life. When we see people who are like us, doing these things, it gives us the initiative, the drive, and the inspiration to know that we can do those things, too.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published February 14, 2024 at 07:57PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/CY1oZdM