Thursday, 26 December 2024

ACLU: Who is Pete Hegseth?

Who is Pete Hegseth?

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated the Fox News Channel host Pete Hegseth to lead the Department of Defense (DOD). If confirmed, the military veteran will lead the nation’s armed forces in what will be his first appointment to a political office.

Hegseth was commissioned as an infantry officer in the Army National Guard and he served in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11. Prior to his stint as a talk show host on Fox News, he led the nonprofits Vets for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America.

The ACLU has spent more than 100 years holding power accountable. While as a matter of policy the ACLU does not endorse or oppose nominees for cabinet-level positions, it does examine and publicize nominees’ civil liberties records. Given the power and influence defense officials have over U.S. national security policy and decision making, a president’s secretary of defense choice has serious consequences for civil liberties at home and abroad. Ahead of the January Senate confirmation hearings, we analyze Hegseth’s record on key civil liberties issues, and urge Congress to carefully consider the impact his leadership would have on our rights.

The Department of Defense on Civil Liberties

As the largest U.S. government agency with the largest discretionary budget, the DOD oversees all U.S. military operations. The secretary of defense is responsible for ensuring troops comply with all applicable laws, including the laws of war. Importantly, the secretary must comply with both the Constitution, which requires Congress alone to make the ultimate decision to go to war and use force except to repel a sudden attack (and then only for a limited period); and the War Powers Resolution, which Congress intended to reflect the Constitution’s checks and balances. The Constitution itself gives the power to declare war and authorize the use of force to Congress alone. The ACLU has long advocated against unlawful use of force abroad, as well as adherence to our system of checks and balances and international humanitarian and human rights law.

With blatant disregard for the appropriate role of the military on American soil, Trump has, on numerous occasions, stated that he plans to use military troops to help conduct his mass deportation plans, or suppress protest. Deployment of troops for these purposes would be an abuse of power. As secretary of defense, Hegseth could be called upon to support or carry out these extreme and unprecedented actions.

The DOD is the largest employer in the U.S., with nearly 1 million civilian employees and more than 2 million military personnel. Whether it’s protecting the rights of LGBTQ servicemembers and their families, ensuring that immigrant service members are given the expedited citizenship they may be entitled to, or demanding that parents be allowed to enroll and graduate from military service academies, it is vital for the DOD to protect the civil rights and liberties of its employees and comply with the rule of law in serving the American people writ large.

On the Record: Where Hegseth Stands

Hegseth has a long record of extremely concerning views on a variety of civil liberties issues related to the military and U.S. national security policy. His positions include:

  1. He has excused war crimes. Disregarding the objections of senior defense officials, he encouraged Trump to pardon three U.S. servicemen accused, or convicted, of war crimes. Trump ultimately pardoned all three men.
  2. He has supported overbroad claims of presidential authority to use lethal force without congressional authorization. He not only supported the Trump administration’s lethal strike against Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force, he also pushed for Trump to bomb cultural sites in Iran, which would have contravened the laws of war. Hegseth has also suggested that the U.S. use the military against Mexico’s drug cartels.
  3. He has supported using the military to suppress protests. In 2020, he supported sending the military to U.S. cities, like Seattle, to suppress racial justice protests.
  4. He has opposed efforts to fight discrimination in the military. Hegseth has stated that, “any general that was involved, general, admiral, whatever, that was involved in any of the DEI, woke s--t has got to go.” In reference to the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who is Black, Hegseth wrote, “Take it to the racist bank: black troops, at all levels, will be promoted simply based on their race. Some will be qualified; some will not be.”
  5. He recently shifted his views on women serving in combat. In November, he said he opposed women in combat, and used gender stereotypes to make his case. He stated, “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated.” But after meeting with several women senators in December, he said “we support all women in our military today, . . . combat included.”
  6. Hegseth has also opposed medical care for transgender soldiers. He stated that transgender soldiers are “not deployable” because they are “reliant on chemicals” and referred to discussions on transgender issues in the military as “trans lunacy.
  7. He has made virulently anti-Muslim statements. He asserted that Muslim communities in America represent “an existential threat” to the country and repeated other vitriolic and hateful stereotypes about Muslims, who already face discrimination in the U.S., especially by national security agencies.

Finally, credible allegations exist that Hegseth has engaged in sexual misconduct, and the Senate must investigate the matter further before advancing his nomination. Given longstanding concerns regarding sexual assault in the military and the statements Hegseth has made regarding the role of women in combat, these allegations are directly relevant to his nomination as secretary of defense.

Commitments the ACLU is Urging Senators to Demand at Hegseth’s Confirmation Hearing:

Based on his track record, the ACLU is concerned about how Hegseth would use the DOD’s vast power and resources, and about the impact his leadership would have on our civil liberties and civil rights. At his confirmation hearing, we’re urging senators to ask Hegseth:

  1. When the framers drafted the Constitution, they wanted to ensure the clear separation of the civilian government from a nonpolitical, nonpartisan military. The military should have no role to play in mass deportation or suppression of protest and in fact we condemn other countries that send in troops to break up protests or enforce civil laws. Will you pledge not to deploy the military to intimidate or use force against protesters in American cities? Will you pledge not to deploy troops to carry out civilian law enforcement functions on American soil, which could place them at risk of violating criminal law?
  2. In 2015, 78 Senators voted to ensure that this country never again engages in torture. Do you agree to support and adhere to that bipartisan pledge?
  3. Adherence to the rule of law, including the laws of war, is critical for U.S. service members who rely on the secretary of defense to ensure they are not placed at risk of committing unlawful actions. Will you ensure that the DOD conforms to the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution and act only as authorized by Congress, as well as international humanitarian law?
  4. Will you support LGBTQ service members continuing to serve in the military, and also provide health care, including reproductive health care and gender-affirming care, for all eligible service members and their families?
  5. In the space of less than two months, you went from arguing, ““I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles,” to later saying, “we support all women in our military today, . . . combat included.” Will you commit now to continue all of the Department’s current policies and practices that support women serving in combat and in combat positions?


Published December 26, 2024 at 07:52PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/1yB0cn5

ACLU: Who is Pete Hegseth?

Who is Pete Hegseth?

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated the Fox News Channel host Pete Hegseth to lead the Department of Defense (DOD). If confirmed, the military veteran will lead the nation’s armed forces in what will be his first appointment to a political office.

Hegseth was commissioned as an infantry officer in the Army National Guard and he served in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11. Prior to his stint as a talk show host on Fox News, he led the nonprofits Vets for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America.

The ACLU has spent more than 100 years holding power accountable. While as a matter of policy the ACLU does not endorse or oppose nominees for cabinet-level positions, it does examine and publicize nominees’ civil liberties records. Given the power and influence defense officials have over U.S. national security policy and decision making, a president’s secretary of defense choice has serious consequences for civil liberties at home and abroad. Ahead of the January Senate confirmation hearings, we analyze Hegseth’s record on key civil liberties issues, and urge Congress to carefully consider the impact his leadership would have on our rights.

The Department of Defense on Civil Liberties

As the largest U.S. government agency with the largest discretionary budget, the DOD oversees all U.S. military operations. The secretary of defense is responsible for ensuring troops comply with all applicable laws, including the laws of war. Importantly, the secretary must comply with both the Constitution, which requires Congress alone to make the ultimate decision to go to war and use force except to repel a sudden attack (and then only for a limited period); and the War Powers Resolution, which Congress intended to reflect the Constitution’s checks and balances. The Constitution itself gives the power to declare war and authorize the use of force to Congress alone. The ACLU has long advocated against unlawful use of force abroad, as well as adherence to our system of checks and balances and international humanitarian and human rights law.

With blatant disregard for the appropriate role of the military on American soil, Trump has, on numerous occasions, stated that he plans to use military troops to help conduct his mass deportation plans, or suppress protest. Deployment of troops for these purposes would be an abuse of power. As secretary of defense, Hegseth could be called upon to support or carry out these extreme and unprecedented actions.

The DOD is the largest employer in the U.S., with nearly 1 million civilian employees and more than 2 million military personnel. Whether it’s protecting the rights of LGBTQ servicemembers and their families, ensuring that immigrant service members are given the expedited citizenship they may be entitled to, or demanding that parents be allowed to enroll and graduate from military service academies, it is vital for the DOD to protect the civil rights and liberties of its employees and comply with the rule of law in serving the American people writ large.

On the Record: Where Hegseth Stands

Hegseth has a long record of extremely concerning views on a variety of civil liberties issues related to the military and U.S. national security policy. His positions include:

  1. He has excused war crimes. Disregarding the objections of senior defense officials, he encouraged Trump to pardon three U.S. servicemen accused, or convicted, of war crimes. Trump ultimately pardoned all three men.
  2. He has supported overbroad claims of presidential authority to use lethal force without congressional authorization. He not only supported the Trump administration’s lethal strike against Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force, he also pushed for Trump to bomb cultural sites in Iran, which would have contravened the laws of war. Hegseth has also suggested that the U.S. use the military against Mexico’s drug cartels.
  3. He has supported using the military to suppress protests. In 2020, he supported sending the military to U.S. cities, like Seattle, to suppress racial justice protests.
  4. He has opposed efforts to fight discrimination in the military. Hegseth has stated that, “any general that was involved, general, admiral, whatever, that was involved in any of the DEI, woke s--t has got to go.” In reference to the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who is Black, Hegseth wrote, “Take it to the racist bank: black troops, at all levels, will be promoted simply based on their race. Some will be qualified; some will not be.”
  5. He recently shifted his views on women serving in combat. In November, he said he opposed women in combat, and used gender stereotypes to make his case. He stated, “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated.” But after meeting with several women senators in December, he said “we support all women in our military today, . . . combat included.”
  6. Hegseth has also opposed medical care for transgender soldiers. He stated that transgender soldiers are “not deployable” because they are “reliant on chemicals” and referred to discussions on transgender issues in the military as “trans lunacy.
  7. He has made virulently anti-Muslim statements. He asserted that Muslim communities in America represent “an existential threat” to the country and repeated other vitriolic and hateful stereotypes about Muslims, who already face discrimination in the U.S., especially by national security agencies.

Finally, credible allegations exist that Hegseth has engaged in sexual misconduct, and the Senate must investigate the matter further before advancing his nomination. Given longstanding concerns regarding sexual assault in the military and the statements Hegseth has made regarding the role of women in combat, these allegations are directly relevant to his nomination as secretary of defense.

Commitments the ACLU is Urging Senators to Demand at Hegseth’s Confirmation Hearing:

Based on his track record, the ACLU is concerned about how Hegseth would use the DOD’s vast power and resources, and about the impact his leadership would have on our civil liberties and civil rights. At his confirmation hearing, we’re urging senators to ask Hegseth:

  1. When the framers drafted the Constitution, they wanted to ensure the clear separation of the civilian government from a nonpolitical, nonpartisan military. The military should have no role to play in mass deportation or suppression of protest and in fact we condemn other countries that send in troops to break up protests or enforce civil laws. Will you pledge not to deploy the military to intimidate or use force against protesters in American cities? Will you pledge not to deploy troops to carry out civilian law enforcement functions on American soil, which could place them at risk of violating criminal law?
  2. In 2015, 78 Senators voted to ensure that this country never again engages in torture. Do you agree to support and adhere to that bipartisan pledge?
  3. Adherence to the rule of law, including the laws of war, is critical for U.S. service members who rely on the secretary of defense to ensure they are not placed at risk of committing unlawful actions. Will you ensure that the DOD conforms to the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution and act only as authorized by Congress, as well as international humanitarian law?
  4. Will you support LGBTQ service members continuing to serve in the military, and also provide health care, including reproductive health care and gender-affirming care, for all eligible service members and their families?
  5. In the space of less than two months, you went from arguing, ““I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles,” to later saying, “we support all women in our military today, . . . combat included.” Will you commit now to continue all of the Department’s current policies and practices that support women serving in combat and in combat positions?


Published December 27, 2024 at 01:22AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/wQni3za

Tuesday, 17 December 2024

ACLU: The Electoral College: Why Are States Just Voting Now? | ACLU

The Electoral College: Why Are States Just Voting Now? | ACLU

On election night, Americans across the country were focused on one number: 270.

It’s a well-known – and hotly-contentious – fact that in American politics, presidential candidates must win 270 Electoral College votes to secure the White House. While news media rushed to declare the candidate with the most Electoral College votes on or around Election Day, the Electoral College’s work does not begin, nor end, on Election Day. Instead, electors cast their official votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following the presidential election, which this election cycle falls on December 17.

At the ACLU, we have long argued that the Electoral College is an antiquated and undemocratic process for choosing the highest elected offices in our nation. So why do we have the Electoral College? What does it really do and do we actually need it? The ACLU explains.

The Electoral College was Created as a Compromise

Though the term "Electoral College" doesn't appear in the Constitution, it was established during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to address disagreements over how to select the president and vice president. The original system, outlined in Article II of the Constitution, allowed each elector to cast two votes for president, with the candidate who received the most votes becoming president and the second place finisher becoming vice president. This led to complications when political rivals were elected to these roles, prompting the adoption of the 12th Amendment in 1804, which required electors to cast separate votes for each office.

At the time, regional divisions also influenced the College’s creation. Southern states, where non-voting enslaved people made up about one-third of the population, opposed a direct popular vote that would have given their states less votes. After much debate, the convention eventually reached the decision to establish the system we now refer to as the Electoral College, applying the three-fifths compromise that counted three out of five enslaved people as part of a state’s total population, though they were still prohibited from voting.

State Size Determines The Number of Electoral Votes a State Gets

The number of Electoral College votes allocated to each state is equal to its total representation in Congress: two votes for its Senators and a number corresponding to its members in the House of Representatives. This allocation is based on the Census, which determines congressional apportionment every 10 years. In total, the Electoral College consists of 538 members, including three votes for the District of Columbia, granted by the 23rd Amendment ratified in 1961. A simple majority of electoral votes (270 or more) is required to elect the president and vice president.

State Electors Aren’t Actually Elected

The process for selecting electors varies by state, but typically involves a two-step process. Political parties first nominate a slate of electors who pledge to support their party’s candidate before the general election, often selecting party loyalists, state officials, or individuals with ties to their candidate. On Election Day, voters choose their state’s electors indirectly by voting for their preferred presidential candidate. Most states follow a winner-take-all system in which the candidate with the most votes receives all of the electoral votes in the state. Maine and Nebraska use a proportional allocation system, assigning two “at-large” electors to the overall statewide winner and appointing individual electors based on the winner of the popular vote within each Congressional district.

Electors Who Stray From the Popular Vote Could Face Fines

Electors are not bound by the Constitution to vote according to the states’ popular vote, but more than 30 states and Washington D.C. have laws that legally obligate them to do so. Some states, such as South Carolina and Oklahoma, even impose criminal action or fines against electors that stray from the states’ popular vote.

Electors Don’t Vote On Election Day

Electors don't actually vote until December – more than a month after the election. During their meeting, electors formally cast separate votes for president and vice president with their results recorded on Certificates of Vote that are sent to the vice president acting as president of the Senate, relevant state officials, the local federal district courts, and the National Archives. These certificates must reach Washington, D.C. by December 25 to be included in the official count.

The final count, however, doesn't occur until even later. This year, on January 6, during a joint session of Congress, officials will declare the president and vice president. The president-elect takes the oath of office and is sworn in two weeks later. If no candidate receives a majority of at least 270 votes, the election is decided by Congress, with the House selecting the president and the Senate choosing the vice president.

Why America Doesn’t Use the Popular Vote

The ACLU has opposed the Electoral College since 1969 for non-partisan reasons, including its undemocratic and unpredictable nature. Unfortunately, amending the Constitution to eliminate this antiquated system is difficult not just because amending the Constitution is hard – it would require at least 37 states to agree to a proposed change – but because the College’s supporters believe that it is a way to give small states power. States receive electoral votes equal to its congressional delegation, guaranteeing a minimum of three votes regardless of population size. This system elevates the influence of smaller states, as larger states would otherwise dominate national elections.

Why We Should Work to Eliminate the Electoral College

The Electoral College thwarts the fundamental principle of “one person, one vote” by awarding each state a number of electoral votes equal to its allocation of representatives plus its two senators. A voter in Wyoming thus has more than three times as much influence on the presidential election as a voter in more densely-populated California. That’s not to mention the racial and ethnic disparities in voting power that influence how electoral votes are allocated. One study calculated that Asian-Americans have barely more than half the voting power of white Americans because they tend to live in “safe” states — like Democratic-leaning New York and California and Republican-leaning Texas.

Right now, the Electoral College harms democracy when it:

  • Nullifies the popular vote. In five presidential elections, the winner of the electoral college has lost the popular vote. This means that a presidential candidate that did not achieve a majority of the votes and was not supported by a majority or even plurality of the American people can still win through the electoral college and thus the election. Critics argue that the nullification of the popular vote also has a negative effect on voter turnout, discouraging voters from feeling like voting matters.
  • Shrouds Electors in Secrecy. In most states, there is very little public information about how electors are selected and who they are. The process is entirely determined by political parties and incorporates little voter input. Many states also do not have laws requiring electors to vote according to the popular vote in their state, risking the possibility of “faithless” electors who may vote contrary to the will of the voters.
  • Gives “swing states” an unfair advantage. The Electoral College system disproportionately benefits certain “swing states” in which the outcome of the election is uncertain. Presidential candidates from both political parties often invest significant resources and attention in these states, neglecting voters in states with a more predictable political leaning.

The Electoral College undermines the principle of “one person, one vote” by giving disproportionate influence to smaller states and swing states allowing a candidate to potentially win the presidency without securing the popular vote. This outdated system fails to reflect the will of the people in a modern democracy, creating inequities in representation. Despite the uphill battle, amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College would ensure that every vote carries equal weight in presidential elections.



Published December 17, 2024 at 04:44PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/s9cen8K

ACLU: The Electoral College: Why Are States Just Voting Now? | ACLU

The Electoral College: Why Are States Just Voting Now? | ACLU

On election night, Americans across the country were focused on one number: 270.

It’s a well-known – and hotly-contentious – fact that in American politics, presidential candidates must win 270 Electoral College votes to secure the White House. While news media rushed to declare the candidate with the most Electoral College votes on or around Election Day, the Electoral College’s work does not begin, nor end, on Election Day. Instead, electors cast their official votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following the presidential election, which this election cycle falls on December 17.

At the ACLU, we have long argued that the Electoral College is an antiquated and undemocratic process for choosing the highest elected offices in our nation. So why do we have the Electoral College? What does it really do and do we actually need it? The ACLU explains.

The Electoral College was Created as a Compromise

Though the term "Electoral College" doesn't appear in the Constitution, it was established during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to address disagreements over how to select the president and vice president. The original system, outlined in Article II of the Constitution, allowed each elector to cast two votes for president, with the candidate who received the most votes becoming president and the second place finisher becoming vice president. This led to complications when political rivals were elected to these roles, prompting the adoption of the 12th Amendment in 1804, which required electors to cast separate votes for each office.

At the time, regional divisions also influenced the College’s creation. Southern states, where non-voting enslaved people made up about one-third of the population, opposed a direct popular vote that would have given their states less votes. After much debate, the convention eventually reached the decision to establish the system we now refer to as the Electoral College, applying the three-fifths compromise that counted three out of five enslaved people as part of a state’s total population, though they were still prohibited from voting.

State Size Determines The Number of Electoral Votes a State Gets

The number of Electoral College votes allocated to each state is equal to its total representation in Congress: two votes for its Senators and a number corresponding to its members in the House of Representatives. This allocation is based on the Census, which determines congressional apportionment every 10 years. In total, the Electoral College consists of 538 members, including three votes for the District of Columbia, granted by the 23rd Amendment ratified in 1961. A simple majority of electoral votes (270 or more) is required to elect the president and vice president.

State Electors Aren’t Actually Elected

The process for selecting electors varies by state, but typically involves a two-step process. Political parties first nominate a slate of electors who pledge to support their party’s candidate before the general election, often selecting party loyalists, state officials, or individuals with ties to their candidate. On Election Day, voters choose their state’s electors indirectly by voting for their preferred presidential candidate. Most states follow a winner-take-all system in which the candidate with the most votes receives all of the electoral votes in the state. Maine and Nebraska use a proportional allocation system, assigning two “at-large” electors to the overall statewide winner and appointing individual electors based on the winner of the popular vote within each Congressional district.

Electors Who Stray From the Popular Vote Could Face Fines

Electors are not bound by the Constitution to vote according to the states’ popular vote, but more than 30 states and Washington D.C. have laws that legally obligate them to do so. Some states, such as South Carolina and Oklahoma, even impose criminal action or fines against electors that stray from the states’ popular vote.

Electors Don’t Vote On Election Day

Electors don't actually vote until December – more than a month after the election. During their meeting, electors formally cast separate votes for president and vice president with their results recorded on Certificates of Vote that are sent to the vice president acting as president of the Senate, relevant state officials, the local federal district courts, and the National Archives. These certificates must reach Washington, D.C. by December 25 to be included in the official count.

The final count, however, doesn't occur until even later. This year, on January 6, during a joint session of Congress, officials will declare the president and vice president. The president-elect takes the oath of office and is sworn in two weeks later. If no candidate receives a majority of at least 270 votes, the election is decided by Congress, with the House selecting the president and the Senate choosing the vice president.

Why America Doesn’t Use the Popular Vote

The ACLU has opposed the Electoral College since 1969 for non-partisan reasons, including its undemocratic and unpredictable nature. Unfortunately, amending the Constitution to eliminate this antiquated system is difficult not just because amending the Constitution is hard – it would require at least 37 states to agree to a proposed change – but because the College’s supporters believe that it is a way to give small states power. States receive electoral votes equal to its congressional delegation, guaranteeing a minimum of three votes regardless of population size. This system elevates the influence of smaller states, as larger states would otherwise dominate national elections.

Why We Should Work to Eliminate the Electoral College

The Electoral College thwarts the fundamental principle of “one person, one vote” by awarding each state a number of electoral votes equal to its allocation of representatives plus its two senators. A voter in Wyoming thus has more than three times as much influence on the presidential election as a voter in more densely-populated California. That’s not to mention the racial and ethnic disparities in voting power that influence how electoral votes are allocated. One study calculated that Asian-Americans have barely more than half the voting power of white Americans because they tend to live in “safe” states — like Democratic-leaning New York and California and Republican-leaning Texas.

Right now, the Electoral College harms democracy when it:

  • Nullifies the popular vote. In five presidential elections, the winner of the electoral college has lost the popular vote. This means that a presidential candidate that did not achieve a majority of the votes and was not supported by a majority or even plurality of the American people can still win through the electoral college and thus the election. Critics argue that the nullification of the popular vote also has a negative effect on voter turnout, discouraging voters from feeling like voting matters.
  • Shrouds Electors in Secrecy. In most states, there is very little public information about how electors are selected and who they are. The process is entirely determined by political parties and incorporates little voter input. Many states also do not have laws requiring electors to vote according to the popular vote in their state, risking the possibility of “faithless” electors who may vote contrary to the will of the voters.
  • Gives “swing states” an unfair advantage. The Electoral College system disproportionately benefits certain “swing states” in which the outcome of the election is uncertain. Presidential candidates from both political parties often invest significant resources and attention in these states, neglecting voters in states with a more predictable political leaning.

The Electoral College undermines the principle of “one person, one vote” by giving disproportionate influence to smaller states and swing states allowing a candidate to potentially win the presidency without securing the popular vote. This outdated system fails to reflect the will of the people in a modern democracy, creating inequities in representation. Despite the uphill battle, amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College would ensure that every vote carries equal weight in presidential elections.



Published December 17, 2024 at 10:14PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/54Iw3zO

Monday, 16 December 2024

ACLU: Failed War on Drugs Policies Won't Stop the Overdose Crisis, But Harm Reduction Can Save Lives

Failed War on Drugs Policies Won't Stop the Overdose Crisis, But Harm Reduction Can Save Lives


Published December 17, 2024 at 12:06AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/SFrLVHb

ACLU: Failed War on Drugs Policies Won't Stop the Overdose Crisis, But Harm Reduction Can Save Lives

Failed War on Drugs Policies Won't Stop the Overdose Crisis, But Harm Reduction Can Save Lives


Published December 16, 2024 at 06:36PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/lHFtvBT

Friday, 13 December 2024

ACLU: Trump’s Remarks on Birthright Citizenship, Explained

Trump’s Remarks on Birthright Citizenship, Explained


Published December 13, 2024 at 09:50PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/vmz7GZ4

ACLU: Trump’s Remarks on Birthright Citizenship, Explained

Trump’s Remarks on Birthright Citizenship, Explained


Published December 14, 2024 at 03:20AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/qeCsTUg

Wednesday, 11 December 2024

ACLU: Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.

Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.


Published December 11, 2024 at 09:01PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/EYgrJ8s

ACLU: Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.

Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.


Published December 12, 2024 at 02:31AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/hTLgMNf

Tuesday, 10 December 2024

ACLU: Why the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights Issue

Why the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights Issue


Published December 11, 2024 at 02:28AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/rjMQsJh

ACLU: Why the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights Issue

Why the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights Issue


Published December 10, 2024 at 08:58PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/lkeY6fE

ACLU: We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases

We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases


Published December 10, 2024 at 05:01PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ZpRY7Cg

ACLU: We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases

We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases


Published December 10, 2024 at 10:31PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/DkRPmi2

Tuesday, 3 December 2024

ACLU: SCOTUS Trans Rights Case is About Human Right to Autonomy

SCOTUS Trans Rights Case is About Human Right to Autonomy

From a young age, I enjoyed playing around with gender roles, but it wasn’t until later in my adolescence that I started to have more complex thoughts about my gender identity. What I discovered, both in my childhood and later in my development, was that a lot of trans folks have similarly nonlinear approaches, or nonlinear journeys, to their trans lives. There were moments I was very attached to my femininity, and moments where I felt more masculine. Getting to exist on either side of this gender binary – and explore the middle ground between them – was invaluable.

As a trans person and as a physician, I know just how important it is for young people and their families to be able to talk to trusted health care providers about the uncertainties they’re facing or the questions they have.

However, as I was navigating this complex development, I did not have adults in my life to whom I could turn for guidance and support with my gender. When I was younger, I didn’t have access to the doctors or health care providers who could help me access gender affirming care – or just talk to me about my gender. That’s why, as a trans person and as a physician, I know just how important it is for young people and their families to be able to talk to trusted health care providers about the uncertainties they’re facing or the questions they have.

In my work, I’ve found that speaking with young people about their gender leads to really fruitful conversations about concerns or curiosities that they may have. But medical care, and health care more broadly, isn’t just about questions and answers. It’s about making space for complex conversations that let young people and their families know we can go on this path of self discovery together.

As a physician, I am not looking to “diagnose” a gender, but to support young people, and their families, as they figure out their sense of self.

Adolescence is a time during which many start figuring out who they are, and it’s exciting to see young people question the structures of our society, including the structures of gender. But too often we underestimate young people’s ability to introspect, and we question them when they tell us who they are. As a physician, I am not looking to “diagnose” a gender, but to support young people, and their families, as they figure out their sense of self. No one makes the decision to seek out gender-affirming care on a whim. To those who consider gender-affirming care a drastic decision, I have seen that it is in fact something that is carefully considered by young people, their families, and their provider. And that is who should get to make those decisions. Governments should not be allowed to make decisions about our bodies, and the proliferation of gender-affirming care bans is not only deeply transphobic, but also sets a dangerous precedent.

Right now, this medically-necessary care is being maligned by pseudoscience, fear, and bigotry. We know these treatments are safe. We also know that young people can end up changing their minds. That’s also something that’s safe to do. We've been offering the same therapies for youth who are not transgender for a long time. It only seemed to cause a political problem when it started affecting trans folks.

Every single patient that approaches care, both in a gender-affirming context and in all other medical contexts, has a very individual story, has very individual goals, and has a very specific context in which they might be seeking that care. What I’m really hoping for is a world where trans adolescents have the autonomy and power to make decisions about their bodies without political interference and with the support of family and their health care providers. For me, that is a world where we really celebrate transness for the beauty that I think it is.



Published December 3, 2024 at 08:43PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/V9m3ulb

ACLU: SCOTUS Trans Rights Case is About Human Right to Autonomy

SCOTUS Trans Rights Case is About Human Right to Autonomy

From a young age, I enjoyed playing around with gender roles, but it wasn’t until later in my adolescence that I started to have more complex thoughts about my gender identity. What I discovered, both in my childhood and later in my development, was that a lot of trans folks have similarly nonlinear approaches, or nonlinear journeys, to their trans lives. There were moments I was very attached to my femininity, and moments where I felt more masculine. Getting to exist on either side of this gender binary – and explore the middle ground between them – was invaluable.

As a trans person and as a physician, I know just how important it is for young people and their families to be able to talk to trusted health care providers about the uncertainties they’re facing or the questions they have.

However, as I was navigating this complex development, I did not have adults in my life to whom I could turn for guidance and support with my gender. When I was younger, I didn’t have access to the doctors or health care providers who could help me access gender affirming care – or just talk to me about my gender. That’s why, as a trans person and as a physician, I know just how important it is for young people and their families to be able to talk to trusted health care providers about the uncertainties they’re facing or the questions they have.

In my work, I’ve found that speaking with young people about their gender leads to really fruitful conversations about concerns or curiosities that they may have. But medical care, and health care more broadly, isn’t just about questions and answers. It’s about making space for complex conversations that let young people and their families know we can go on this path of self discovery together.

As a physician, I am not looking to “diagnose” a gender, but to support young people, and their families, as they figure out their sense of self.

Adolescence is a time during which many start figuring out who they are, and it’s exciting to see young people question the structures of our society, including the structures of gender. But too often we underestimate young people’s ability to introspect, and we question them when they tell us who they are. As a physician, I am not looking to “diagnose” a gender, but to support young people, and their families, as they figure out their sense of self. No one makes the decision to seek out gender-affirming care on a whim. To those who consider gender-affirming care a drastic decision, I have seen that it is in fact something that is carefully considered by young people, their families, and their provider. And that is who should get to make those decisions. Governments should not be allowed to make decisions about our bodies, and the proliferation of gender-affirming care bans is not only deeply transphobic, but also sets a dangerous precedent.

Right now, this medically-necessary care is being maligned by pseudoscience, fear, and bigotry. We know these treatments are safe. We also know that young people can end up changing their minds. That’s also something that’s safe to do. We've been offering the same therapies for youth who are not transgender for a long time. It only seemed to cause a political problem when it started affecting trans folks.

Every single patient that approaches care, both in a gender-affirming context and in all other medical contexts, has a very individual story, has very individual goals, and has a very specific context in which they might be seeking that care. What I’m really hoping for is a world where trans adolescents have the autonomy and power to make decisions about their bodies without political interference and with the support of family and their health care providers. For me, that is a world where we really celebrate transness for the beauty that I think it is.



Published December 4, 2024 at 02:13AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/AbOVxWk