ACSBlog

  • August 17, 2016

    By Kevin Battersby Witenoff

    In The Hill, Melissa Boteach and Rebecca Vallas advocate to reform TANF and expound upon the necessity to improve other social welfare programs.

    The ACLU has filed a lawsuit against the Florida Department of Corrections on behalf of transgender woman, Reiyn Keohane. The ACLU and Keohane are alleging the DOC has infringed upon her Eighth Amendment rights by disallowing hormone therapy treatment, reports Andrew V. Pestano of UPI.

    The Huffington Post published an op-ed by Jason Steed in which he explains why it may be in Republican Senators' best interest to reconsider a hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

    Annalyn Kurtz in The New York Times highlights the challenges faced by new mothers in a male-dominated field that are representative of the struggles females encounter in the workplace across the country.  

  • August 15, 2016

    By Kevin Battersby Witenoff

    The Seventh Circuit Court was unwilling to extend Title VII non-discrimination protection based on sexual orientation, reports George M. Patterson at The National Law Review

    David G. Savage at the Los Angeles Times reports North Carolina and Wisconsin lawyers are attacking gerrymandered electoral maps that ensure suppression of voters of particular races and party affiliation.

    The Editorial Board at The New York Times shares the difficulties of citizens in Sparta, Ga. who experience overt voter suppression reminiscent of Jim Crow.  

    After a report released by the Department of Justice exposed the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ failure to appropriately monitor and control regulations in for-profit prisons, Carl Takei reexamines their necessity in an op-ed for The Marshall Project

  • August 12, 2016
    Guest Post

    by Tom Nolan, Associate Professor of Criminology, Merrimack College; 27-year veteran of the Boston Police Department 

    On Wednesday, August 10, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released the findings of its investigation into the Baltimore City Police Department (BPD) that followed troubling allegations raised in the aftermath of the death of Freddie Gray at the hands of the BPD in April of 2015. At that time (as well as long before and continuing to the present), there were consistent and hauntingly similar reports that the department had repeatedly and pervasively engaged in practices and policies that infringed upon the First and Fourth Amendment rights of community residents in Baltimore, and particularly residents in communities of color.

    The investigation by the DOJ found that the BPD “makes stops, searches and arrests without the required justification; uses enforcement strategies that unlawfully subject African Americans to disproportionate rates of stops, searches and arrests; uses excessive force; and retaliates against individuals for their constitutionally-protected expression.” The DOJ report found that the BPD engages in “pattern and practice” violations of the Fourth Amendment, specifically in “focusing enforcement strategies on African Americans, leading to severe and unjustified racial disparities in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Safe Streets Act.”

    In addition to engaging in repeated practices of using excessive force, the DOJ investigation reported that the BPD also “interact(s) with individuals with mental health disabilities in a manner that violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.” The BPD was also found to have engaged in a pattern and practice of repeatedly violating the rights of individuals and groups that are protected under the First Amendment, including freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

  • August 11, 2016
    Guest Post

    by Michael Vargas, Associate at Rimon

    In his Citizens United v. FEC dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas sent up a signal flare that could have far greater repercussions than the landmark decision itself. In his dissent, Justice Thomas argued that disclosure requirements on corporations were unconstitutional compelled speech because they opened up corporations to public reprisal for the information found in those disclosures, and he steadfastly rejected the argument that these disclosure requirements could be justified on the grounds that they simply “provided voters with additional information.” This startling pronouncement, if applied to all corporate “speech,” would effectively nullify all corporate disclosure laws currently on the books, including most if not all Wall Street regulations. This fear was largely an academic one, until the D.C. Circuit ruled, in National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC, that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules on Conflict Minerals were unconstitutional in an opinion that sounds remarkably similar to Justice Thomas’ Citizens United dissent. There can be no doubt that all federal regulation that uses disclosure as a means of oversight is now in very real peril from conservative judges who adhere to Thomas’ beliefs.

    The Battle to Prohibit Conflict Minerals

    For the people of Zaire, 1996 brought with it the end of the repressive and corrupt dictatorship of Joseph Mabutu, and the beginning of a series of civil wars that continue to rage today. The country, renamed the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in 1997, is a humanitarian nightmare, as warlords and mercenaries use rape and murder to enslave the population and put them to work in mines extracting minerals such as gold, tin, tungsten and tantalite (3TG). These 3TG minerals, used to manufacture many high-tech devices such as cellphones and computers, are then sold in western markets with the proceeds used to finance the civil war in the DRC. International human rights organizations and even the United Nations have long identified these “conflict minerals” as one of the most important humanitarian crises in the world today.

  • August 11, 2016
    Guest Post

    by Nimra Chowdhry, Reproductive Justice Fellow, and Stephanie Zhou, Communications and Development Associate at the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum

    Women, specifically women of color, in the United States are being criminalized for their abortions. Purvi Patel’s experience is representative. Patel, a South Asian American woman, was convicted in Indiana for the loss of her pregnancy outside of a medical setting after the State charged her in response to an alleged self-induced abortion. She now awaits certification of an appellate decision after the Indiana Court of Appeals recently ruled in her favor. On Friday, July 22, the Court of Appeals released its opinion overturning Patel’s feticide conviction and downgrading her neglect of a dependent conviction from a class A felony to a class D felony. Patel has already served nearly a year and a half in the Indiana Women's Prison. The Appellate Court’s decision is in accord with widely held public opinion that women who terminate or attempt to terminate their pregnancies should not be put behind bars.

    Patel is the first woman in the United States to be sent to prison for terminating her own pregnancy under a state’s feticide law. She was charged and convicted after she sought medical attention from an emergency room due to heavy bleeding and pain following the loss of her pregnancy. Yet, once her healthcare providers became aware of her pregnancy, they assisted local police in her arrest. Prosecutors centered their argument on whether Patel obtained and used abortifacient medication, and whether the fetus took a single breath. The State questioned Patel’s motives as an Indian woman and repeatedly asked her to disclose the ethnicity of the father of her pregnancy. Subsequently, Patel was convicted under conflicting charges of feticide and child neglect. The charges are inconsistent because the feticide charge is intended to prosecute someone who purposefully harms a fetus in utero, whereas neglect of a child or dependent laws are intended to punish those who neglect their affirmative duties as guardians by knowingly or intentionally causing harm to a living, breathing child. Feticide laws are meant to protect pregnant women against harm from third party actors who cause injury to their pregnancies, not punish pregnant women themselves. Yet Patel was punished for having, or attempting to have, an abortion under this law. Fortunately, the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with reproductive rights advocates and held that the State’s Feticide Statute was not meant to be a tool to criminalize women for their abortions. 

    Patel’s prosecution is not only a demonstration of anti-abortion animus leading to negative health outcomes for women across the country, but it is also an example of stereotyping of women of color, specifically  the reproductive decision-making of Asian American women.  In fact, neither the state of Indiana nor Congress has shown signs of progress against anti-immigrant stereotyping or anti-Asian rhetoric. Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) are among the fastest growing racial group in the United States, yet make up only two percent of the total population in Indiana. At the same time, the only two women in Indiana who have been prosecuted for feticide have both been Asian American. The other woman, Bei Bei Shuai, is Chinese American.