nancydhooper - Tumblr blog

nancydhooper · 2 years

Text

CVS Wants the Supreme Court to Gut Non-Discrimination Protections for People with Disabilities. It Could Set Us Back Decades.

“I’m sorry, we don’t serve people with disabilities.” “That’s okay, I don’t eat them.”

This is a long-standing joke in the disability community, but it is based in reality. Many younger people might be surprised to learn that, not long ago, people with disabilities could be refused service with impunity. College students with disabilities were — if allowed to go to college — housed in the infirmary, not with their peers. Teachers who used wheelchairs — if able to get a teaching degree — were denied jobs because their wheelchair posed a “fire hazard.”

Just decades ago, disability rights activists led protests and sit-ins at federal buildings across the country to bring light to these experiences. One of these sit-ins in 1973, lasting 25 days, became the longest occupation of a federal building in history. The effort was a rallying cry for lawmakers to implement Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act — the first federal disability civil rights law.

It took years of advocacy, education, and protest to achieve this victory. Now, this very law is under threat again.

In December, the Supreme Court will hear arguments for CVS v. Doe, a case that threatens to roll back decades of disability rights progress. The case is about a relatively small issue: whether people living with HIV/AIDS can opt-out of a “mail-delivery only” program to receive their medications from CVS. But CVS, instead of addressing the case on its merits — or, frankly, just allowing these plaintiffs the reasonable accommodation they seek — has decided to attack the very foundation of disability rights laws.

CVS has chosen to argue that disparate impact cases can no longer be brought under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Once obscure outside of legal circles, disparate impact is the backbone under which legal challenges to practices that disproportionately impact people with disabilities are brought.

We often think of discrimination as fairly personal. For example, when the wedding cake maker refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex couple, they have deliberately, and intentionally decided to discriminate against the same-sex couple. Disparate impact cases are different. They address situations in which seemingly neutral policies have discriminatory effects. In disability rights litigation, these cases are critical. People with disabilities regularly face exclusion and segregation, not because of anyone’s intention to exclude them or segregate them, but because people with disabilities aren’t being considered. The discrimination is one of “benign neglect” or thoughtlessness, not hatred or disapproval.

Disparate impact cases brought under the Rehabilitation Act address discrimination that denies people with disabilities full participation in society. The cases address apparently neutral discriminatory policies like: failing to provide wheelchair-accessible public transportation, creating zoning ordinances that exclude group homes for people with developmental disabilities, or providing college course materials in formats that are unreadable by blind students.

CVS now argues that people with disabilities only have a right to bring discrimination claims if the discrimination was intentional, not merely thoughtless. If disability laws were confined to only intentional acts of discrimination, civil protections that allow people with disabilities to fully participate and contribute to society would become meaningless. A company that makes huge profits from providing medications — many of which are for people with disabilities — now has the audacity to attack our ability to be included in the fabric of society.

Before Section 504, people with disabilities had no legal ability to challenge these practices. Yes, a restaurant could simply shut their door in the face of a person in a wheelchair, or with a white cane, or missing an arm, or with cerebral palsy. Sidewalks had no curb cuts, buildings were completely inaccessible to wheelchair users, and no blind person had a right to materials in Braille. Children with disabilities were routinely excluded from school with their peers, and often warehoused in institutions. This reality is what led disability activists to fight for the Rehabilitation Act.

We can’t go back to the old days of exclusion and discrimination. CVS should drop this argument, and remove this case from the Supreme Court docket. The disability community – and the ACLU – will fight this outrageous attack on our rights and our history.

Stay informed about our work

Sign up from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/cvs-wants-the-supreme-court-to-gut-non-discrimination-protections-for-people-with-disabilities-it-could-set-us-back-decades via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

nancydhooper · 2 years

Text

ICE Makes It Impossible for Immigrants in Detention to Contact Lawyers

“Ben G.” is a 35-year-old veterinarian from Nicaragua who fled to the United States after he was beaten and tortured by police. When he crossed the border into the U.S., he requested asylum. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) eventually transferred Ben to the Winn County Correctional Center, an ICE detention facility in rural Louisiana located four hours away from the nearest metropolitan area. It is also the facility with the fewest immigration attorneys available in the entire country.

Despite passing the government’s initial screening and having a credible fear of persecution, Ben was still unable to find a lawyer. As a fellow detained person noted, “without having knowledge, we’ll go directly to the slaughterhouse.”

Ben’s story illustrates the monumental barriers that detained immigrants face in finding lawyers to represent them. As described in a letter sent today by the American Immigration Council, the ACLU, and 88 legal service provider organizations to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, ICE detention facilities have systematically restricted the most basic modes of communication that detained people need to connect with their lawyers and the rest of the outside world, including phones, mail, and email access.

This must change. The immigration detention system is inherently flawed, unjust, and unnecessary. The best way to eliminate these barriers to justice is to release people from detention.

Although immigrants have the right to be represented by lawyers in immigration proceedings, they must pay for their own lawyers or find free counsel, unlike people in criminal custody who have the right to government-appointed counsel. In many cases, detained immigrants cannot find lawyers because ICE facilities make it so difficult to even get in touch and communicate with attorneys in the first place.

The importance of legal representation for people in immigration proceedings cannot be overstated. Detained people with counsel are 10 times more likely to win their immigration cases than those without representation. Yet the vast majority of detained people — over 70 percent — faced immigration courts without a lawyer this year.

ICE has set the stage for this problem by locating most immigration detention facilities far from cities where lawyers are accessible. Each year, ICE locks up hundreds of thousands of people in a network of over 200 county jails, private prisons, and other carceral facilities, most often in geographically isolated locations, far from immigration attorneys.

Even when attorneys are available and willing to represent detained people, ICE detention facilities make it prohibitively difficult for lawyers to communicate with their detained clients, refusing to make even the most basic of accommodations. For example, many ICE facilities routinely refuse to allow attorneys to schedule calls with their clients.

As described in the letter, the El Paso Immigration Collaborative reported that staff at the Torrance County Detention Facility in New Mexico have told their lawyers that they simply don’t have the capacity to schedule calls in a timely manner, delaying requests for more than one week or more.

The University of Texas Law School’s Immigration Law Clinic attempted to schedule a video teleconferencing call with a client at the South Texas ICE Processing Center. An employee of the GEO Group, Inc., which runs the facility, told them that no calls were available for two weeks.

Even when detained people can speak with lawyers, ICE detention facilities cut these calls short, leaving legal providers like the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project in Arizona unable to complete intakes for potential clients in complex immigration cases in less than 20 minutes.

ICE detention facilities also fail to deliver legal mail on time to detained people, refuse to give detained people faxed documents, prevent access to email, and even confiscate legal paperwork, all of which violate ICE’s own policies.

For example, as an attorney with Mariposa Legal Services in Indiana reported that the Boone County Jail in Kentucky, which detains immigrants for ICE, has failed to replace a faulty fax machine — the only mechanism for requesting client calls or visits. Boone County has also refused to allow any calls on Thursdays, brought incorrect people to meet with attorneys, and has used attorney-client rooms as housing cells when the facility is overcrowded. The attorney also reported that the facility failed to deliver legal paperwork sent via FedEx to a client in detention.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. Legal advocacy groups have documented how ICE and telecommunications corporations inhibit communication between detained immigrants and their families, advocates, and allies. On multiple occasions, federal lawsuits have forced ICE to make improvements designed to provide immigrants in detention access to counsel and the courts in select facilities. ICE must continue to do so at those select facilities and expand those protections to all facilities in the detention system.

Immigration detention is inhumane, and it is a key barrier to access to justice. But so long as people are detained, ICE must ensure that detention facilities provide immigrants with timely access to counsel.

Stay informed about our work

Sign up from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/ice-makes-it-impossible-for-immigrants-in-detention-to-contact-lawyers via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

nancydhooper · 3 years

Text

My Life Was Derailed By a Traffic Ticket

The morning started out like any other. I was on my way to work at a food safety lab, in a new car with tinted windows and a temporary plate displayed behind tinted windows. A highway patrol officer pulled me over and gave me a ticket for the windows and for not having a license plate, because he couldn’t see it. I thought it was a minor infraction. I didn’t know it would kick off an ordeal that has cost me thousands of dollars and three jobs for over a decade since. That traffic ticket changed my life and I am still feeling the effects every day.

I ended up facing fines of about $500 in total, including about $140 for tinted windows. The fine for the license plate was dismissed, but I still had to pay court costs. It was about $350 just for stepping into court, even though I did nothing wrong. At the time, I was making $20 per hour. So I got on a payment plan to pay it off.

Not long after, the lab I worked at closed down and I lost my job — and my ability to make those payments. Meanwhile, the interest piled up and my court debt continued to grow. I thought things were looking up when I got another job, this time at a plastic manufacturing company in Loveland, Colorado. But I got pulled over again on my way to work. That’s when I found out that my driver’s license had been suspended for failing to make payments during that period when I didn’t have a job.

I missed work that day because I was sitting in jail, without the ability to call in. When I finally got out and tried to explain the situation to my employer, I found out I’d been automatically fired due to their strict no call, no show policy. “Sorry,” they said. “There’s nothing we can do.”

For the second time, I was in the predicament of having no job and a continuously growing amount of fines and fees. This time, though, I knew I didn’t have a license, which meant most jobs were out of reach since I’d have to drive to get there. At that point, I felt like I had no choice: either drive without a license, or miss out on an opportunity to make a living again and make those payments. I’d be breaking the law either way.

When I was pulled over that morning in 2011, I had no idea what was happening to me and how it would impact the rest of my life. Until then, my life felt like it was on track. I had a great job that allowed me to provide for my three kids and start the process of buying a house. I had no criminal record. And yet, I’ve spent the past 10 years entangled with the criminal legal system and mired in seemingly endless debt. My career has taken a hit and I’ve been unable to keep a steady, good-paying job since then. If I were rich, I would have been able to avoid all of the troubles of the past decade. But instead, I’m being punished for not having enough money.

Today, I still don’t have a driver’s license. My fines and fees now total about $3,000. I’ve been paying what I can but barely making a dent in my debt because of the interest rate. I don’t know how long it will take to pay off my debt and get my license back with the $12 per hour I make at my current job as a dishwasher at a sushi restaurant. My job is unstable, especially now with restaurants closing due to the pandemic. If I lose my job, I will once again have to make the choice between driving without a license and making those payments. Right now, I walk or use city bikes to get to work, but winter is coming.

What happened to me happens to millions of Americans who struggle to pay off government-imposed debts for minor traffic violations. State and local governments use these fines and fees to fund law enforcement and other government operations, but the inability to afford expensive tickets has no bearing on public safety and should not be treated as if it does. Punishing the inability to pay through driver’s license suspension criminalizes poverty and traps people in a cycle of debt and incarceration. The burden of this unfair system falls primarily on Black and Brown communities who are already overpoliced and have lower incomes as a result of documented systemic racism.

Many states have already started rethinking this system. Nevada, for example, has decriminalized minor violations like speeding tickets, driving with a broken tail light, and parking tickets so that they don’t result in arrest warrants, driver’s license suspension, or incarceration for people who can’t afford to pay them off. However, 12 states still have laws on the books that trap people in endless cycles of debt for these minor infractions. I’m not saying that people should not face consequences for violating these laws. But it shouldn’t destroy your life.

There is a bill in Congress right now that would go a long way in ending the cycle of poverty caused by the imposition and collection of fines and fees. The Driving for Opportunity Act would provide grants to states that do not suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a driver’s license for failure to pay a civil or criminal fine or fee. The government should not use law enforcement to make money and should not punish people who can’t afford to pay. Courts and other public services should be fully funded through tax dollars, not through predatory tickets, fines, and fees that lead to policing for profit. Passing these reforms would protect millions of Americans from remaining trapped in poverty and being forced into making impossible decisions — like whether to pay off your fines or put food on the table.

Send a Message to Congress: Pass the Driving For Opportunity Act

Stay informed about our work

Sign up from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/my-life-was-derailed-by-a-traffic-ticket via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

nancydhooper · 3 years

Text

Internal Watchdog Finds ICE Violations of Solitary Confinement Policy

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) published a shocking report detailing the failure of ICE detention facilities and field offices to comply with rules governing the use of solitary confinement or segregation. The report also discusses ICE’s destruction of documents regarding its use of solitary confinement, which raises serious red flags considering the agency’s troubled history of transparency.

Solitary confinement refers to a form of confinement in which people are held in total or near-total isolation — generally 22 hours or more per day with virtually no human contact. The use of solitary confinement is exceedingly common in the U.S. immigration detention system: According to ICE’s own data, detained immigrants were placed in solitary confinement more than 14,000 times over four years from 2015 to 2019. This uptick occurred even after ICE adopted standards that should have restricted the use of solitary confinement. ICE uses two forms of segregation: administrative segregation, which is supposedly non-punitive, for purposes like protecting the detainee, and disciplinary segregation, which is a punitive form of segregation allowable only when a person has been found to have violated jail rules.

ICE policy recognizes that placing a person in solitary confinement is a “serious step that requires careful consideration of alternatives.” But what happens in lock up across ICE’s detention machine is another matter. An astonishing 72 percent of cases examined by OIG investigators showed that ICE and its contractors are throwing people into solitary confinement without first considering less-restrictive alternatives, like denial of access to the commissary or removal from group activities. Even more alarming, detention facilities failed to consider alternatives to solitary in two-thirds of cases involving individuals with special vulnerabilities, like members of the LGBTQ community and people who experience mental illness. For those individuals, ICE policy explicitly states that solitary confinement may be used only as a last resort.

ICE and its contractors’ abuse of solitary confinement, especially against those with mental illness, has led to record levels of death by suicide in recent years. Jean Jimenez-Joseph and Efrain De La Rosa took their own lives at ICE’s Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia. Both men had histories of severe schizophrenia and psychosis, which was known to ICE, but jail officials sent them to solitary confinement anyway.

The OIG report also found that ICE often failed to comply with its own segregation reporting requirements. According to ICE policy, whenever an individual with a special vulnerability is placed in solitary confinement, and whenever any other person has been placed there for 14 days, ICE is required to notify ICE headquarters of the development. But in over 1 in 10 cases the OIG examined, no report was filed with headquarters at all. One such case involved a person with schizophrenia who spent 30 days in segregation. Moreover, OIG found that in cases where ICE did report a solitary confinement placement, it often did so late. One person’s placement in solitary was not relayed to headquarters until 88 days into a 250-day segregation placement. This is no mere paperwork failure. As the report explains, “[d]elays in segregation reporting could impact ICE’s ability to mitigate possible misuse of segregation and prevent unnecessary, prolonged segregation placements.”

The OIG also uncovered ICE’s violations of document preservation rules. ICE was not able to provide OIG with nearly 10 percent of the detention files requested, because they had been unlawfully destroyed or were lost. Many files were destroyed months after ICE agreed to a litigation hold in connection with a case brought by good government groups and historians for the very purpose of stopping ICE from destroying such records.

Prolonged solitary confinement lasting longer than 15 days — as it very often does in immigration detention — constitutes torture, and is a violation of international standards outlined in the U.N.’s Nelson Mandela Rules. Shorter periods of solitary confinement, according to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, “can also amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment where the physical conditions of prison regime … fail to respect the inherent dignity of the human person and cause severe mental and physical pain or suffering.”

This report is by no means the first time watchdogs have identified failures by ICE to adhere to solitary confinement policy. OIG itself previously found significant segregation placement reporting failures like the ones described in last week’s report. The DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties sounded the alarm over abuse of the segregation policy at the Adelanto Correctional Facility in California. Similarly, nearly a decade ago, the National Immigrant Justice Center and Physicians for Human Rights, reported on ICE’s failure to enforce consistent solitary confinement standards in its detention facilities.

Abuse of solitary confinement in the U.S. immigration detention system has persisted despite years of oversight reports, investigations by state officials, Congressional hearings, proposed legislation sponsored by influential members of the Senate, lawsuits, and death.

At the beginning of the Biden administration, the ACLU called on DHS to follow through on Biden’s commitments during the campaign and ban the use of solitary confinement (whether for administrative, protective, or disciplinary reasons). We have not seen progress to date. At the very least, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas should respond to the OIG’s findings by placing an immediate moratorium on the use of solitary confinement and requiring a detailed, facility-by-facility review of solitary confinement practices. Congress should use its appropriations powers to prohibit the use of federal funds for solitary confinement. Moreover, Congress should aggressively question DHS and ICE officials about the agency’s unlawful destruction of records and its continued use of solitary confinement for prolonged periods.

The latest OIG report underscores the reality that immigration detention is inherently inhumane. It’s time to put an end to ICE’s detention machine.

What you can do:

Shut Down the ICE Detention Machine

Send your message

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/internal-watchdog-finds-ice-violations-of-solitary-confinement-policy via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

nancydhooper · 3 years

Text

We Need Accountability for Those Who Commit Violence Against Native Women

CONTENT WARNING: The following content contains details of sexual violence and may be harmful or traumatizing to some readers.

When L.B., a Northern Cheyenne woman, called the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to her house for help, she was hoping to receive support. Instead, she was sexually assaulted by a law enforcement officer who was sworn to protect her.

In October 2015, L.B. called the police to report that her mother was driving while intoxicated. Shortly after, a BIA officer arrived at L.B.’s house dressed in uniform in what started out as a routine visit. The officer entered her home and asked L.B. if she was alone. L.B. explained that her children were sleeping in another room and admitted to having a couple of drinks that evening. The officer proceeded to administer a breathalyzer test. When she did not pass the test, he accused her of child endangerment, threatened to arrest her, and then threatened to contact social services and have them take her children away from her.

The threats left L.B. visibly distraught and fearful of losing her children and her job. The officer then used his threats and power as a law enforcement officer to prey on her and force her to have sex with him. What started out as a call for help quickly turned into a threatening situation that ended in sexual assault.

Reports of sexual violence against Native women and the failure of law enforcement agencies to address these abuses are, unfortunately, far too common within Native communities. More than four in five Native American women reported being survivors of sexual violence during this last year. But on reservations in Montana and across the country, reports of sexual violence are almost never prosecuted as a result of racial and gender-based discrimination and legal loopholes that leave Native women unprotected against sexual violence.

One of these legal loopholes stems from a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that eliminated tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian perpetrated crimes on tribal lands. This prevents tribes from being able to prosecute the majority of violent crimes committed against their citizens in their own homes, including crimes of sexual violence. The Supreme Court’s decision in Oliphant, in most cases, leaves the federal government as the only government with jurisdiction to prosecute a sexual assault committed against a Native woman on tribal lands. But when federal law enforcement officers are the perpetrators themselves, it’s even more unlikely these women will receive justice. This is why we filed an amicus brief in support of L.B. and calling for law enforcement to be held accountable for committing and perpetuating sexual violence against Indigenous women.

Federal law enforcement has historically failed to protect against, and has often perpetuated, racialized and gender-based violence against Indigenous women and girls. Law enforcement is typically unresponsive to tribal needs, open cases languish unresolved, and wrongdoers exploit these gaps to prey on Native women and girls. This is critical for tribal citizens where sexual assault, human trafficking, and other forms of violence have reached crisis levels, especially for women and girls.

Native communities have frequently expressed frustration about the difficulty of being heard by federal authorities. Fear and mistrust of the government is the result of generations of broken promises and is an ongoing barrier to reporting. Because reservations can be policed by as few as half a dozen BIA officers, survivors of sexual misconduct by these officers rightly are concerned that they will have to interact with their abusers again in the future, discouraging them from coming forward. And when survivors do come forward, they face legal barriers to receiving justice.

In the L.B. case, the Montana Supreme Court will decide whether state law holds federal agencies accountable when one of its law enforcement officers uses their power and authority over a citizen to commit sexual assault. The officer who raped L.B. was convicted of rape and sentenced in May 2018 to three years in federal prison. In L.B.’s ensuing civil lawsuit for damages, however, a federal judge found the government was not liable for the BIA officer’s actions because the officer was “not acting in the scope of his employment” at the time of the rape. L.B. appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which in August sought guidance from the Montana Supreme Court.

In the 1990s in Maguire v. State, the Montana Supreme Court suggested that sexual assault falls outside the scope of ordinary employment, which arguably includes law enforcement. The consequence of the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in Maguire is that women and children who are sexually assaulted by federal law officers within the state of Montana cannot sue the federal government, nor can they hold a federal law enforcement agency responsible for the actions of its officers.

This hole in the law disproportionately affects Native women living on tribal lands, since they are the population in Montana most likely to encounter federal law enforcement. Native women already experience the highest rates of sexual assault and violence in the United States, leaving them vulnerable to sexual assault in the hands of federal law enforcement officers — with no institutional recourse. If federal law enforcement isn’t held accountable when their officers abuse their authority, it only ensures that sexual violence against Native women Montana will continue to escalate.

Stay informed about our work

Sign up from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/we-need-accountability-for-those-who-commit-violence-against-native-women via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

nancydhooper · 3 years

Text

How Mastercard’s New Policy Violates Sex Workers’ Rights

Mastercard’s new policy regulating adult content sellers goes into effect today. This is bad news for many sex workers, whose safety and livelihoods depend on access to financial services and online platforms. The policy makes it harder for sex workers to do business online and makes sex workers more vulnerable, especially those who are trans women of color.

https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1449019991068708868

Here’s what to know about financial discrimination against sex workers, how we’re fighting back, and what Mastercard must do now – and in the longrun – to protect sex workers’ rights.

Sex workers already face many forms of financial and tech-based discrimination.

Many banks and companies single out sex workers by forcing them to pay higher fees and interest rates because they consider them “high-risk.” Public platforms like PayPal and Venmo, which should offer their services to all users without discrimination, continue to boot sex workers and other users off their platforms with little due process. Bans on certain online content can also get adult websites shut-down and cost sex workers their livelihoods.

These practices amount to financial discrimination, which stigmatizes sex work and endangers the safety of sex workers by pushing the industry deeper into the shadows.

What does Mastercard’s adult content policy do?

Mastercard developed a new policy for adult content websites using its credit card or payment options, imposing requirements such as pre-approval of all content before publication, forbidding certain search terms, and keeping records of age and identity verification for all performers. The stated intent of the policy is to prevent child sexual abuse material and other non-consensual content. But in practice, these requirements are difficult – if not impossible – to comply with.

To take one example, a site like OnlyFans has one million content creators. If each of them uploaded one video in a given day, under Mastercard’s policy, OnlyFans would have to review each video before it’s published to determine whether it complies. Pre-publication review at that scale is almost impossible, and would likely be rife with errors considering the speed at which online platforms operate. This policy will make it much harder for platforms to host adult content, which will destabilize the websites that sex workers use to make a living. Additionally, this policy is not targeted to address Mastercard’s stated concerns. The policy applies only to a small fraction of web sites – those that host adult content – but all available evidence indicates these problems proliferate across all kinds of websites.

Financial discrimination and sex work decriminalization is a civil liberties issue.

Everyone deserves access to financial services and everyone should be able to make a living and support themselves and their families. Financial discrimination and other laws and policies that criminalize or stigmatize sex work disproportionately harm the safety and wellbeing of Black trans women, contribute to mass incarceration and racist policing, chill our right to free speech and invade our privacy.

If Mastercard is a true supporter of LGBTQ rights, as it claims on its Pride page, it should immediately reverse this discriminatory policy.

Sex work is work.

Sex workers’ livelihoods shouldn’t depend on the whims of politicians and corporations. Using financial products and services like Mastercard and PayPal, and access to websites that use these payment processors, can make or break a sex worker’s ability to work and survive in our increasingly virtual society. Economic freedom, healthcare, and other basic rights are inaccessible when politicians and corporations don’t treat sex work like they would any other job.

Criminalizing and marginalizing sex work does not make sex workers safer.

Laws that criminalize sex work make sex workers more vulnerable to abuse by clients, law enforcement, and others who target and harass sex workers or those perceived as sex workers, such as many trans women of color. Abusers know that sex workers often will not report out of fear of arrest. Similarly, not allowing sex workers full access to web platforms and financial services makes it harder for sex workers to survive.

Sex workers became even more vulnerable to abuse from clients after the passage of SESTA/FOSTA in 2018. The law had the effect of eliminating many online platforms for sex workers, including client screening services like Redbook, which allowed sex workers to share information about abusive and dangerous customers and build communities to protect themselves. The law also pushed more sex workers offline and into the streets, where they have to work in isolated areas to avoid arrest, and deal with clients without background checks.

Sex worker reform advocates are making progress.

In June, the ACLU joined 22 other civil rights groups in demanding a stop to financial platforms’ practices that harm vulnerable communities by shutting people out without due process. After facing months of pressure from sex workers’ rights activists, the online platform OnlyFans suspended a planned policy to ban pornography, which would have gone into effect on October 1. These efforts prove that activism is working.

Financial services companies must ensure that sex workers have access to services.

Mastercard must end their policy unfairly targeting the adult content industry and ensure equitable access to financial services. In addition to reversing discriminatory policies, Mastercard must sit down with stakeholders to develop solutions that create stability and reduce harm for sex workers. We must discourage companies from passing similar policies or otherwise denying services to sex workers.

To join the fight, tweet @Mastercard to end this policy and protect sex workers’ rights.

Are you a sex worker/adult content professional who has been affected by financial discrimination?

Let us know. Please email me at [email protected].

What you can do:

Congress: Pass the Equality Act

Send your message

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/how-mastercards-new-policy-violates-sex-workers-rights via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

nancydhooper · 3 years

Text

Justice is on the Ballot: Make an Informed Decision for New Orleans Sheriff

Orleans Parish is the most populous in all of Louisiana, and is home to the eighth largest correctional facility in the nation. There is a heavily contested plan to build a new 89-bed jail facility on Perdido Street to treat people with mental health problems. Studies have found that incarceration can worsen mental illness, and that investing in treating people in their communities can be an effective alternative.

The proposed new jail would cost taxpayers at least $51 million to build. An alternative to the new jail is a plan proposed by the City Council to improve the current jail to meet the needs of people with mental health conditions, which would cost taxpayers significantly less – $9 million.

In addition, under the policy of the current sheriff, people in custody do not get free phone calls. Families spend millions of dollars on phone calls to and from incarcerated people in Louisiana. Charging fees for all phone calls makes it difficult to maintain family and community bonds and burdens families that do not have the financial means to afford these calls.

The ACLU does not endorse or oppose individual candidates, but we urge you to make an informed decision in this critical election.

The ACLU is a nonpartisan organization that does not endorse or oppose candidates. This campaign informs Louisianans on candidates’ positions before they cast their ballot.

What you can do:

Join our Volunteer Teams

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/justice-is-on-the-ballot-make-an-informed-decision-for-new-orleans-sheriff via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

nancydhooper · 3 years

Text

The People of South Carolina Deserve Fair Maps — And a Fair Process to Get There

As redistricting ramps up nationwide following the U.S. census, the state of South Carolina has not been forthcoming about its schedule for drawing new electoral lines. In fact, even though this process only happens once a decade and determines the political power of millions, the legislature just adjourned for the fall, delaying the process by months as the 2022 election cycle fast approaches. And we don’t know when they are coming back. That’s why the ACLU and NAACP Legal Defense Fund filed a federal lawsuit demanding that the state establish a concrete, transparent redistricting schedule. South Carolinians deserve to know when their electoral maps will be drawn — and that they will be drawn fairly.

Redistricting is not easy. To achieve equal population among districts while respecting existing communities and complying with relevant laws, the Supreme Court has emphasized that redistricting requires a meticulous, “intensely local” analysis. This analysis requires local input. Yet the legislature has held minimal hearings, many only in person despite the delta variant of COVID-19, and many at times that do not work for working people.

The analysis also takes time. Yet, on Sept. 22, the state House announced it would adjourn for the fall without proposing new maps. On Sept. 24, the state Senate followed suit, noting there was no point in coming to work if proposed bills, including redistricting bills, were just going to “languish” until the House returned. Neither the legislature nor the governor has committed to convening a special session to fulfill their once-in-a-decade, time-consuming, and time-sensitive obligation. Although the legislature has claimed that delays are attributable to COVID-19 pushing the release of federal census data to the states, that’s just more reason not to adjourn.

The legislature’s abrupt decision to delay the redistricting process presents an immediate problem. Right now, the state House, state Senate, and U.S. congressional districts in South Carolina are severely out of proportion. That’s because they were last drawn with population data from 2010, after the last census. But South Carolina’s population has shifted significantly since then, such that some districts now have far too many residents and others too few. For example, South Carolina’s Sixth Congressional District is now almost 12 percent underpopulated, while the First Congressional District is almost 12 percent overpopulated. This means that, at this very moment, the people of the First District are having their voices diluted.

Candidates for political office at all levels are also harmed. They and their supporters do not know where their voters will be and therefore cannot begin mobilizing them. This is particularly true for independent candidates and their supporters, who need to take the additional step of collecting thousands of signatures ahead of the March 30 deadline just to get on the ballot. Until the legislature reconvenes and passes new, legally compliant maps — and the governor signs them into law — the current, unfair maps will stay intact.

Map-making also takes time because, especially in South Carolina, maps are virtually always challenged in court to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. South Carolina’s maps have been litigated every decade since the Voting Rights Act was passed — in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. Many of those times, a court had to throw out the state’s proposed maps because they violated the law. Most of these cycles, it took about four to six months for the court to hear and resolve the case. One cycle, it took years. In other words, even if the legislature came back today, they’d be cutting pretty close for comfort.

In fact, if legally acceptable maps are not passed in time, a court may have to order the illegal ones to stay in place simply to avoid voter confusion prior to the filing deadlines, primaries, and general election. That perverse result would be directly attributable to the legislature’s unacceptable delay. That’s why we need the court to step in now.

South Carolina’s legislature must make the redistricting process more transparent. It must also provide adequate time for local input on, and inevitable litigation concerning, their proposed new district lines. The public must be fully engaged to ensure that all communities are fairly represented by the advocates of their choice. Too much is at stake. Redistricting affects representation, and representation affects everything else, from our schools to our health care to our criminal justice system. South Carolinians demand maps that are fair and representative, and for that they need a transparent, trustworthy process to get them there.

Stay informed about our work

Sign up from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/the-people-of-south-carolina-deserve-fair-maps-and-a-fair-process-to-get-there via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

nancydhooper · 3 years

Text

What the Supreme Court Could Do About Mass Incarceration in the Current Term

As the Supreme Court kicks off another term this week, we should make one thing abundantly clear: Nine lawyers in black robes will not end mass incarceration and systemic racism in America. Not this term, not any. That doesn’t, however, mean the criminal law cases being argued and decided between now and June are inconsequential. The Justices could, if they choose, place meaningful limits on the power of local officials — police, prosecutors, judges — and give sharper teeth to key constitutional protections. This is why the ACLU tracks these cases closely and participates in many. They matter.

That said, we should be clear-eyed about what the justices can do, what they can’t do, and how you can fill in the gaps. With that in mind, here are three cases worth your attention:

Thompson v. Clark (argument Oct. 12, 2021)

In 2014, NYPD officers wrongfully barged into Larry Thompson’s Brooklyn home and pinned him to the ground after he demanded to see a warrant that they did not produce. To deflect blame, the officers falsely accused him of resisting arrest. When the charges were finally dropped, Thompson sued the police, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. But New York federal judges tossed the case. They ruled that Thompson had to show “affirmative indications of innocence” before he could sue.

This makes no sense. People accused of crimes are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and may not have the time or resources to prove their own innocence before charges are dropped. Instead, the dropping of charges itself should be enough to indicate that the criminal proceeding has ended favorably for the accused, and a civil rights case can begin.

What the justices could do: Support both the presumption of innocence and law enforcement accountability by rejecting the “actual indication of innocence” standard.

What they can’t do: End law enforcement abuses and cover-ups, so that the next Larry Thompson is never assaulted at all, much less falsely accused of assault himself.

What you can do to fill the gap: Vote for prosecutors, sheriffs, judges, and mayors who commit to changing police abuses; lobby for legislation that eliminates the myriad procedural bars to civil rights suits that erect an almost impenetrable protective shell around law enforcement.

Frasier v. Evans (argument not yet granted)

Speaking of procedural bars to police accountability, there is of course qualified immunity, which lets police and other public officials off the hook for constitutional violations unless the law is already “clearly established.” In practice, this is a virtually impossible standard to meet. Qualified immunity and its fatal flaws have gained national recognition in the wake of racial justice uprisings since the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, but we’re still awaiting its elimination.

In this case, Levi Frasier recorded Denver police officers punching a man in the head. The police officers then seized Frasier’s tablet, trying to erase the video. Frasier rightly sued under the First Amendment, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (wrongly, in our opinion) granted the officers qualified immunity — even though they had been trained that the public was allowed to record them.

What the justices could do: Affirm the clearly established right to record the police doing their jobs and eliminate qualified immunity altogether. Because qualified immunity is a judge-made doctrine in the first place, the Justices could simply eliminate qualified immunity. This would be a game-changer.

What they can’t do: Stop police from punching people in the face.

What you can do fill in the gap: While we continue to press the court to fix qualified immunity itself, you can lobby your federal and state lawmakers to get rid of it via statute. Colorado is a good example. Since this case was filed, Colorado has taken steps to eliminate qualified immunity for state civil rights actions. On the ground advocacy can create the momentum necessary to push state and local actors to fill in the gaps that SCOTUS refuses to address.

Hemphill v. State of New York (argument Oct. 5, 2021)

Here, prosecutors in the Bronx charged a man named Nicholas Morris with murder after a person was shot during a large fight on the street. Morris’ case ended in a mistrial. The prosecutors, undeterred, then charged Darrell Hemphill for the same murder, arguing he was the real gunman during the fight. Unsurprisingly, Hemphill implicated Morris. Prosecutors then introduced statements from Morris that contradicted Hemphill’s story, but without producing Morris himself to testify in court. The judge allowed Morris’s hearsay statement into evidence, claiming that, without it, Hemphill’s defense would “mislead” the jury. Hemphill — now serving 25 years for the murder — argues that the Constitution guaranteed his right to cross-examine Morris directly in court.

Hemphill is right.

What the justices could do: Affirm that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause is iron-clad, and judges cannot simply waive it by asserting that the defense is somehow misleading. It’s the jury’s job to decide the truth, not the judge’s.

What they can’t do: Meaningfully cut back on prosecutors’ and judges’ discretion to circumvent trial rights, including trials themselves.

What you can do to fill in the gap: Once again, vote for prosecutors and judges who take their constitutional obligations seriously. And in the meantime, support our litigation and legislative efforts to cut back on pretrial detention, eliminate coercive plea bargaining, and take other steps that level the playing field between people accused of crimes and those accusing them.

There are certainly other significant criminal law cases this term, including Shinn v. Ramirez, about a federal court’s power to collect evidence during habeas corpus petitions, and Wooden v. United States, about what prior acts can trigger overly harsh federal sentences for gun possession. There are also cases adjacent to criminal justice in the immigration and national security context, plus cases that have yet to be granted.

More important than the outcome of any one case, however, we should learn to analyze the Supreme Court in light of what it can and can’t do for real people caught in the broken gears of our justice system — and then get to work making up the difference.

Stay informed about our work

Sign up from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/what-the-supreme-court-could-do-about-mass-incarceration-in-the-current-term via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

nancydhooper · 3 years

Text

10 Emerging Artists Share What Systemic Equality Means to Them

We worked with 10 visual artists to create images of what achieving Systemic Equality could look like — a vision of a more inclusive and equitable future for America. A future that roots out injustice, challenges our racist institutions, and ensures that every person can achieve their highest potential, unhampered by structural and institutional racism. We asked them to be bold in envisioning this reimagining of systems – from bridging the racial wealth gap to reconciling our past to ensuring our future expands access for all and empowers all communities – are inspired by these results. Accompanying each piece is a personal statement from the artist about the world they envision on issues such as student debt, fair housing, voting rights and more.

Greg Dubois

“A large step towards systemic equality is ensuring that high speed internet access is expanded out to the millions of people of color who don’t have access to it. My graphic is an idealistic portrayal of an America in which that basic necessity is provided to all – giving everyone real access to education, healthcare, financial growth, governmental support systems and overall connections that can uplift and empower those who’ve been held back from years of systemic inequality.“

Greg is an award winning Haitian-Canadian Visual Designer, who started his design journey over 10 years ago. His passion for visual storytelling drives him to constantly create art and designs that weave together colors, textures, patterns and typography to craft his vision. Greg hopes that his work, if nothing else, captivates, inspires, and provides insight to who he is and what he believes in.

Sophia Zarders

“The intersections of race, history, and ancestry have frequently been at the core of my work. The generational tradition of storytelling, looking through old photos and mapping the family tree have been powerful tools in discovering and understanding my ancestry and America’s history. “Demand Reparations” is a continuation of these themes by conveying a shared history of Black and Indigenous communities. Though none of the figures depicted are based on anyone in particular, I wanted to create a specific yet familiar familial lineage that viewers could identify with in some aspect. The message is clear: this country was built on the thankless hard work and immense suffering of our ancestors. We demand reparations.“

Sophia Zarders (she/they) is an illustrator, comic artist, and independent zine publisher from Long Beach, CA. Their work has been published by HarperCollins, The Nation, PRISM, Fiyah Literary Magazine and Razorcake Magazine. They’ve been commissioned by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, SaveArtSpace, Forward Together, and the Arts Council of Long Beach. In 2018, they exhibited their first solo show at Somos Gallery in Berlin, Germany. Sophia is currently pursuing their MFA in Visual Art from Emily Carr University of Art & Design in Vancouver, BC.

Jade Orlando

“I imagine inequality and racism as weeds with roots burrowing deep into our country’s foundation. This piece highlights a future where we dig out and destroy the roots of injustice, allowing a more beautiful country to bloom for every American.“

Jade Orlando is a Black biracial illustrator working in Atlanta, GA. Her illustrations are featured in books such as Generation Brave, Hey You! and the Activists Assemble series. In addition to book illustration, her art can be found on products ranging from greeting cards to calendars. Jade lives with her husband, four cats, and a Greyhound named Petra. When she’s not illustrating, you can usually find her curled up with her pets and a really good book.

Mia Saine

“Equity can be configured when accessibility is finally given. People have the human right to obtain and experience the freedom they have been promised.

Accessibility dismantles the pillars that barricade our communities from experiencing progression and healing. Beyond the endless cycle of disconnection, people can finally see their lives at true value and being to see communities flourish. This change would offer us the opportunity to build various aspirations and resources to secure a sturdier foundation for everyone.“

Memphis-native illustrator and designer Mia Saine is a non-binary Black creative seeking to share a more positive, inclusive narrative. Saine’s colorful, minimal digital illustrations strive to normalize and amplify minorities’ voices and experiences. Saine triumphs the constant cycle of injustice, tropes, and stereotypes by showcasing minorities, especially Black individuals, embracing their self-empowerment and happiness.

Kahlief Steele

“Do my loved ones truly see me? Do they hear me? Do they feel me? Caught in the crossfire between my white family and friends and my Blackness, I often feel lost in the void.

This work is a natural way for me to communicate these sentiments. Harsh lines and contrast show the differences we have, but the shared range of values recognize that reconciliation is still within reach. The only colors in the piece, green and red, hearken back to our roots in the Pan-African flag. Texture bursts throughout, indicating the gritty nature of the work we’ve done and have yet to do.

Taking broken fragments and piecing them together to make something captivating, I show that the sometimes confused and complicated feelings we have are valid and worthy of being heard.“

Graduating in 2015 from Missouri Southern State University with a BFA in Graphic Design, Kahlief Steele finds ways to use his design skills to solve problems for a variety of clients, including large businesses, nonprofits, friends, and family. Having been raised by a white family, he has a deep longing knowledge about his heritage. As such, every February, he amasses a trove of information related to Black History and publishes art to educate those who are unfamiliar. In the summer following the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, he hosted a Q+A session to foster conversation with those who were unsure of the next steps to take. He continues to create work that inspires others to greater understanding and to take action.

Nadia Fisher

“I created this piece to emphasize the importance of protecting voting rights for everyone. I wanted to illustrate something to show that in order to fight democracy and equity, we have to protect voting rights. The stars in the background represent the states, as they are the ones that are currently trying to pass laws, at an alarming rate, to suppress voting rights, and the flag represents the rights that we are trying to protect and expand.“

Nadia Fisher is a children’s book and freelance illustrator based out of Washington, DC striving to normalize inclusion in children’s books and the illustration world. A lot of her art focuses on social justice, and Nadia hopes to encourage people to find their voice and show up for others.

Daniella Uche-Oji

“I created a design about the Tulsa Race Massacre. There was a thriving black community in the US! There was a successful black community in the US but, of course because, “black people aren’t supposed to own anything” they didn’t let it survive.This is another incident I feel should have been taught in schools Abroad especially African Countries but, unfortunately wasn’t for whatever reason- I personally never learned about it until I moved here. Despite all that has happened to all black people around the world be it Slavery or Colonization there has always been a dare need to take things away from us. Things that we have “owned”; Natural resources on our land, and this same mindset caused the Greenwood District of Tulsa, Oklahoma to be raided and destroyed for NO REASON AT ALL.“

Daniella Uche-Oji is a designer and storyteller based in Los Angeles, CA. She was borned in Houston,Texas and raised in Lagos, Nigerian. Her obsession for storytelling and technology drove her to becoming a designer. She is skilled at graphic and motion designs that tell stories she didn’t get to hear earlier in her life. Her designs are largely inspired by Culture, Music, Fashion and Technology.

Alexa Lima

“What would our society look like for Black and Indigenous people of color if systemic racism no longer thrived? Drawing from a video recording of Nina Simone back in 1968 being asked “What is ‘freedom’ to you? the artist was inspired to convey her response through the medium of digital collage. Simone states that freedom to her meant “…absolutely no fear!”. With this piece, the artist explores what true freedom would look like for her people when absolutely nothing is hindering us, including fear, and we are able to live our truly authentic lives.“

Alexa Lima is an interdisciplinary artist who resides in Marietta, Georgia with her husband, two step-kids, a dog named Zelda, and a cat named Benny. Creating movement through the lens of minimalism is the constant idea that she aims to convey through her work, and centers her design ethos around illuminating that which has been cast aside throughout time. Currently, she is running Ulterior Studio, self-publishing short-run zines, and trying not to consume all the pastries, all the time.

Justine Swindell

“This illustration depicts the collaboration it takes across policymakers, institutions and individuals to close the racial wealth gap. There are many symbolic references including a nod to the many pins and bumper stickers that surface during social movements. The image is layered on a flat black and white divide with all-American denim on both sides. On the denim jacket there are several pins and patches highlighting a few solutions. Lastly, the closure of the jacket represents possibility for a better future, a real and tangible shift to equal opportunity for all.“

Justine Swindell is a multidisciplinary artist based in Washington D.C. In her Neo-Pop style she tells visual stories of city life, cultural identity, and social change.

Nicole Abrokwa

“This piece represents the fear and overwhelming feeling of having student debt. It’s like being lost at sea, helpless with nothing supporting you but your cap. A life preserver enters the scene literally saving you, because at this point student loans are loans paid off for life.“

Nicole Abrokwa is a multidisciplinary artist. Her work pulls from her life experiences, whether that be her Ghanaian heritage, her childhood memories, or everyday life. Her work puts focus on human emotions and capturing moments of closeness. Over the years Nicole has worked on honing her skills in various mediums ranging from digital animations to traditional paintings. When not creating, you can find her unsuccessfully attempting to grow tomatoes and starting another book only for it to be left unfinished.

What you can do:

Take the pledge: Systemic Equality Agenda

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/10-emerging-artists-share-what-systemic-equality-means-to-them via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

nancydhooper · 3 years

Text

Texas’ Radical Abortion Ban Could Lead to Copycat Bills. Here’s What to Know.

*This information was last updated on October 7, 2021, after a federal court blocked SB 8. If you have questions about or need an abortion in Texas, visit needabortion.org.

Texas’ new abortion ban, SB 8, is designed to ban abortion for most people in Texas and encourage anybody, anywhere, to sue a person who performed or helped someone get an abortion in violation of the ban. While SB 8 is uniquely egregious, it’s a stark example of what’s at stake in the nationwide fight for reproductive freedom. Its impact could spread to millions more nationwide if other states follow suit with copycat bills.

Here’s what to know about SB 8.*