Speaking Freely

I'm Not a Gynecologist But...

2012-01-27T11:45:00.000-05:00

Our society has stuck with the “division of labor” conceptbecause it works. Most people become skilled at one job or type of work andcontract with others for different sets of expertise. Very few people can bedoctors, fundraisers, lobbyists, lawyers, and politicians—at least, not withsuccess. That is why, when I need a medical opinion, I go to my doctor. When Ihave a political concern, I call my representative. This isn't new, and itisn't rocket science. I don't think anyone has ever felt their water break andexclaimed, “Quick, call Warren County State Representative Kathy Rapp!”

This is one of the reasons House Bill 1077 is soinfuriating. Sponsored by Rep. Rapp, this bill, currently under review in the stateHouse Health Committee, is another effort by politicians to tell doctors whatto do-- an irrational step beyond a politician's area of expertise that onlyanti-choice measures regularly seem to demand. The bill makes ultrasoundsmandatory for all women seeking abortions. The bill demands a 24-hour waitperiod between ultrasound and abortion. And the bill requires, ridiculously,that the ultrasound screen be positioned so that women can see the image--whether they want to or not.

While this bill is less extreme than similar bills that requirewomen to look at the ultrasound as a condition for obtaining an abortion, thedifference between the two is miniscule. It's like anti-choicers sit around andthink, “Well, nobody seems to like it when we force women to look at thescreen, so maybe we can just require that it be put in front of her andthen she'll have to see it whether she wants to or not-- and it won't soundquite so bad because she could have just kept her eyes shut!” Aside from the factthat making a woman look at the unwanted bundle of dividing cells in her uterusis medically unnecessary and purely intended to guilt women into changing their(carefully considered) decisions, the fact that it pits the desires of patientsagainst the would-be legal obligations of their doctors decreases trust for nogood medical reason. And it's downright condescending.

Even more problematic is the mandatory 24-hour wait period.The vast majority of counties in Pennsylvania lack an abortion provider, somost women seeking this legal reproductive service have to travel a substantialdistance to obtain it. They may have to take off work, find childcare, andarrange transportation to and from the clinic. How many low-income women canafford to do this on two separate days without serious consequences for theirjobs or their incomes? I don't see Rep.Rapp sponsoring any legislation that provides paid leave forgovernment-mandated-but-medically-unnecessary appointments. The wait periodserves two purposes: One, to make women go home and essentially sit in time-outin the hopes that they'll reconsider their perfectly reasonable choice, and two,to serve as just enough of a barrier that some women won't be able tomake it back to their clinic for the abortion procedure itself. Who needs toban abortions when you can just make it really, really hard to get to theclinics that provide them?

Nobody can deny that doctors are better-informed about goodmedical practice than politicians. So it's only rational to let themadvise their patients-- without anti-choice politics meddling in the process.There's a reason I don't head to the State House when it's time for my yearly Papsmear-- frankly, I don't think those guys would even know where to begin. Theyare not doctors. But my gynecologist is. Why don't we all just stick towhat we're good at.

Janna Frieman is an intern with the ACLU-PA’s Duvall Reproductive Freedom Project. She is pursuing a master's in Social Policy at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Policy and Practice.

From generation to generation, Roe v. Wade protects women’s lives

2012-01-20T11:38:00.003-05:00

Women who experiencedfirst hand the injustices that made up the daily lives of American women beforethe Roe v. Wade decision, whichlegalized abortion in the U.S., surround us daily. These women are our mothers,our grandmothers, our neighbors, and our teachers, many of them unassuming andtoo humble to realize the essential role that they played in the freedoms thatwe enjoy today.

My mother is one ofthese women. Her current life as a suburb-dweller and family therapist combinedwith her excessive modesty hardly scream abortion activist. But her role in themovement has offered me a much greater connection to the issue of safe abortion.

My mother worked at afree clinic as an abortion counselor in the late 1960s and early 1970s whenabortion was illegal. What she most remembers about the experience is howafraid women were and how powerless they felt over their bodies.

“Women were performingabortions on themselves on a daily basis,” she recalls. Many were seriouslyinjured or died because they had no choice but to take matters, literally, intotheir own hands. She spoke of the difficulty of getting a woman to a legal,out-of-state abortion clinic before 1973. She remembers the anxiety in the air,as the clinic staff called names off of a list of women who would be sent toNew York by bus, where abortion was legalized in 1970. This process wascomplicated and dangerous for the women and the volunteers involved, but theydid what they had to do without flinching, because they firmly believed in ourright to choose.

Despite my mother’sknowledge and care in the realm of reproductive health, she was totallyunprepared for a pregnancy that occurred when the Dalkon Shield,* a form of intrauterinedevice (IUD), failed her in 1974 oneyear after Roe was passed. She has no doubt that the excellent care thatshe received from the staff at Planned Parenthood while undergoing theprocedure may not have been possible just one year earlier.

Today, 39 years afterthe Roe v. Wade decision, several newand proposed laws in Pennsylvania threaten to send us back to the days ofunsafe and unavailable abortion care. Let’s not sit back and let legislatorstake away the rights that my mother fought so hard for. We owe it to ourdaughters and granddaughters to fight back.

*The Dalkon Shield was found to cause severe injury to a disproportionately large percentage of its users which and led to numerous lawsuits and juries awarded millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages to thousands of women.

Katherine Bisanzis pursuing a master’s degree in Social Policy & Practice at the Universityof Pennsylvania and interning at the ACLU-PA’s Clara Bell Duvall ReproductiveFreedom Project.

This post is part ofthe We've Had Enough Campaign's Roe v. Wade Blog Carnival. See otherposts on the importance of Roe and the attacks against women's healthhere: http://www.wevehadenoughpa.org/blog.html

Roe v. Wade anniversary message: Don't tread on me

2012-01-18T16:28:00.000-05:00

“Don't Tread On Me.”

It's a favorite saying of anti-government tea partiers andlibertarians alike. Dating back to the Revolutionary War, this motto-- pairedwith the image of a rattlesnake coiled to strike-- summons along with it a callto defend certain natural rights to privacy and autonomy, a fundamentalresistance to the authoritarian impulses of state power. Leave me alone, thesnake glares, or else. Though the iconic phrase has been co-opted for manycauses over its long existence, today itseems as though only right-wing small-and anti-government advocates wave theGadsden flag (as it is historically named) with pride.

But it’s no secret that tea partiers and the politicianswho pander to them don't actually believe in freedom from government regulation-- at least, not without notable exceptions. For all their talk aboutfinancial, educational, and environmental deregulation, the glaringinconsistency of smaller-government activists and politicians lies in theirfierce opposition to the deregulation of a most fundamental site-- the(female) body. My body. And this isn't just a back-burner issue. This is apriority. In the first six months of 2011, Pennsylvania lawmakers spent 30 percentof their days at the Capitol working to restrict access to safe, legal abortionwhen they should have been solving real problems.

Actually, that's small-minded of me. For some voters,activists, and lawmakers, my bodily autonomy is a “real problem.” Theyare so uncomfortable with the idea that I currently can choose whether or notto have a baby that even my right to use birth control is coming under fire inpopular discourse. Iowa caucus runner-up Rick Santorum has infamously said thatcontraception is “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to howthings are supposed to be.” It's no stretch of the imagination to think that ifelected president, Santorum or any one of his like-minded colleagues willcontinue to push these paternalistic, religious, anti-sex, anti-liberty agendas.

And to them I say: don't tread on me. Writing under a pseudonym in 1775, BenFranklin commented on the appropriateness of the rattle snake as a symbol forthe freedom-loving American spirit:

She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, eversurrenders... she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even toher enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of stepping on her.—Was Iwrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct ofAmerica?

As the 39^th anniversaryof Roe v. Wade approaches and my reproductive rightsincreasingly come under fire, I think it’s time to re-appropriate the Gadsdenflag for its original purpose -- the symbolic defense of civil libertiesagainst the creeping authoritarianism of the state. Like the Gadsden flag's rattlesnake, Americanwomen have generously given notice that these onslaughts against our basicbodily autonomy are unacceptable. So let this year be a year filled withpro-choice visibilities, actions, and activism -- a shot across the bow for opponentsof personal liberty and reproductive privacy. Consider this fair warning: don'ttread on me.

Janna Frieman is an intern with the ACLU-PA’s Duvall ReproductiveFreedom Project and a Master of Social Policy candidate at the University ofPennsylvania’s School of Social Policy and Practice.

This post is part ofthe We've Had Enough Campaign's Roe v. Wade Blog Carnival. See otherposts on the importance of Roe and the attacks against women's healthhere: http://www.wevehadenoughpa.org/blog.html

2011 in Review: Detained, shackled, and imprisoned over Arabic flash cards

2012-01-06T12:22:00.000-05:00

TheUnited States government asserts the authority to interrogate, shackle, and imprisontravelers who possess Arabic flash cards in the Philadelphia InternationalAirport. If sanctioned, this claimed powerwill have far-reaching consequences for our First and Fourth Amendment rights.

Inthe summer of 2009, Pomona College senior Nicholas George looked forward to startinghis final year in college. He was scheduled to return to California onSouthwest Airlines. At the Philadelphia International Airport, however, he wasinterrogated, handcuffed and confined in a jail cell because he passed throughairport screening with Arabic-English flash cards (i.e., study aids) and a bookcritical of American foreign policy. The flash cards included, among dozens ofwords, the Arabic translations of “bomb” and “explosives” – facts emphasized bythe U.S. government in its failed attempt to dismiss Nick’s lawsuit.

TwoTSA officers detained the college student and a third TSA agent posed him a seriesof abusive questions, including, “how do you feel about 9/11,” do you know “whodid 9/11,” do you know “what language [bin Laden] spoke” and “do you see whythese cards are suspicious?”

AtTSA’s behest, a Philadelphia police officer cuffed Nick, took him to the airportpolice station, and locked him in a jail cell. Hours later, Joint Terrorism Task Force agents questioned Nick about hispersonal and religious beliefs, educational background (including why he wasstudying Physics at a liberal arts college), and associations (including whetherhe was a member of “pro-Islamic” or “communist” groups on campus). The JTTF officers then told Nick he was not a “realthreat” and indicated he was free to leave.

TSAhas the authority, under the Fourth Amendment, to search a traveler’sbelongings for weapons and explosives; but those searches cannot last longerthan reasonably necessary to achieve that end. TSA’s search of Nick’s person and luggage –which was quite thorough – revealed no evidence that Nick carried any weaponsor explosives. Once the search turned up nothing that would endanger airlinesafety, TSA’s authority was exhausted. TSA agents, however, continued to detain Nick without reasonablesuspicion of criminality, the standard required under the Fourth Amendment tojustify an investigative detention. Compounding this injustice, TSA directedPhiladelphia law enforcement to restrain and imprison Nick – without probablecause to believe he had committed or was committing a crime, the existence ofwhich is essential to justify the constitutionality of an individual’s arrestand imprisonment.

TSAalso retaliated against Nick for possessing First Amendment protected materials.Airport officials are not free to burden a traveler’s right to study certainbooks, or to summon police officers to arrest a traveler who carries an Arabic languagenews article, or, perhaps, the New York Times, which reports on a daily basisabout explosives detonated around the world. What is more, TSA’s actions, if authorized, would chill students fromstudying Arabic, whose fluency is a prerequisite for many fields of employment,including high-level national security positions.

TheACLU-PA and co-counsel initiated a lawsuit in U.S. federal district courtagainst the U.S. government, Philadelphia police officers, and individual TSAemployees for violating Nick’s clearly established Fourth and First Amendmentrights. All the federal defendants movedto dismiss the lawsuit; the court recently denied the motions in full, and thecase is now proceeding to discovery.

Our Nation’s foundersunderstood the human instinct to sacrifice freedom in times of national crisis. That is why they enshrined our essentialfreedoms in the Bill of Rights. At theACLU-PA, we aim to safeguard these fundamental liberties. It is only with yourhelp that we can continue to do so. Wethank you deeply for your support.

Seema Saifee, Legal Fellow, Philadelphia

VIDEO: Thank you!!

2011-12-29T17:11:00.000-05:00

From all of us at the ACLU-PA, a very sincere thank you for your support, no matter what form it takes. None of the work we do would be possible without tens of thousands of Pennsylvanians, and millions of people nationwide, who contribute their time, their funds, or their good word to the work of the ACLU.

While we're at it, one final plug: there's still plenty of time to make a tax-deductible year-end contribution to the ACLU and ACLU-PA!

2011 in Review: The death penalty for people with intellectual disability

2011-12-28T12:59:00.000-05:00

For more than a decade, the ACLU of Pennsylvania has advocated to truly end the execution of people with intellectual disability, formerly known as mental retardation, in our state. Even before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision outlawing the practice in Atkins v. Virginia in 2002, we pushed for the passage of legislation to end this grotesque practice.

Since that case, we have worked with disability advocates throughout the state and with members of the legislature to implement a procedure that would require a judge to decide before trial that a person has ID and cannot be executed. On four separate occasions, including earlier this year, the state Senate passed legislation with this procedure with overwhelming bipartisan support, but the bill has never made it through the state House.

Last week, the long struggle to implement the Atkins decision in the commonwealth took a turn for the worse. In a case out of Lancaster County, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court implemented a procedure for trial courts to follow when a defendant in a capital case files a claim of intellectual disability (ID).

The jury will rule on the claim
The jury will hear the claim after it has convicted the person of first degree murder
The burden is on the defendant to prove that he has ID
The jury's ruling in favor of the defendant must be unanimous

So what does this mean? This means that all jurors in these cases must be what's known as "death qualified," meaning that they must be willing to implement the death penalty. Research shows that death qualified jurors are more likely than non-death qualified jurors to trust prosecutors and police and are less likely to trust mental health experts.

As one friend in the capital legal world told me, the Supreme Court's ruling is what a court does if it wants to nullify the Atkins decision in Pennsylvania. People with ID who are on trial for their lives are more likely to end up on death row as a result of this ruling.

The fight is not over. There is no doubt that this ruling will be challenged in federal court, when an opportunity presents itself. But it is a reminder that the courts are not always our friend. It's a reminder that sometimes our issues must be resolved at the legislature. Former Governor Ed Rendell supported our position. The state Senate supported our position. But we couldn't get it through the House, and now we're left with a horrendous ruling from the state Supreme Court.

And this is why we need your support. Please consider making a year-end, tax-deductible donation to the ACLU of Pennsylvania because freedom can't protect itself.

2011 in Review: The Courage of our Clients

2011-12-25T08:59:00.001-05:00

From Sara Rose in Pittsburgh:

The Mort family, with Isabella

As I reflect on the past year as an ACLU-PA staff attorney, foremost in my mind are the clients I represented. Sometimes, we focus more on the civil liberties we defend than the individuals who are affected - and while we say “the Constitution is our client,” it's the people we represent who illustrate why the Constitution is so important. It takes courage and perseverance to stand up for your rights. Their will and determination protect those rights for all of us.

Steve Conway, a devoted father of three, became our client after Fayette County Children and Youth Services arbitrarily cut off his co ntact with his children. No one ever accused Steve of abusing or neglecting any of his children - CYS arbitrarily decided his legally consensual relationship with a younger woman constituted child abuse. He spent two years away from his children, including one with no contact whatsoever - no phone calls, not even e-mails. A federal judge ruled in his favor just before Thanksgiving 2010 - a few days after Steve was killed in a car crash.

Debra and Robert Conway, Steve's Parents, have continued the lawsuit on behalf of Steve’s estate. That was not an easy decision. They were forced to relive one of the most painful events in the life of their family – the government-enforced separation of their son from his children – and testify about those events during a four-day jury trial. Debra and Robert felt it was that important to stand up for their son’s rights, and to ensure that the heartache they endured at the hands of Fayette County CYS would not happen to another family.

Liz Mort and Alex Rodriguez were also separated from their child – this time in Lawrence County, by CYS and by Jameson Hospital in New Castle. Just three days after their daughter, Isabella, was born, two caseworkers arrived with two police officers to take her away. Liz had failed a drug test, administered by the hospital without her knowledge while she was in labor.

Isabella was kept from her parents for five days of confusion, until CYS figured out that the hospital was using tests so overly sensitive that the poppy-seed bagel Liz ate not long before going into labor triggered a false positive. It's a scenario most of know from a sitcom, regarded by many as a myth, turned into a nightmare for Isabella and her parents.

The ACLU helped Liz and Alex sue CYS and Jameson hospital to ensure that nightmare is not allowed to happen again. Isabella is a happy and thriving eighteen-month-old, but her parents will never forget the anguish of losing her.

Then there are the twenty-five plaintiffs, most of them college students, who were swept up in a mass arrest on the University of Pittsburgh campus at the G-20 Summit in 2009. City officials have painted them as anarchists and provocateur - but dozens of interviews, depositions, and hearings have revealed a story of college students on their own campus, some of them freshman on campus less than a month, surrounded by hundreds of riot-clad police officers for no apparent reason, harassed, attacked, and jailed for up to 18 hours.

One young man suffered serious injury from being pepper sprayed and was then humiliated by police. Another was forced to kneel, handcuffed, in front of a line of police officers as they posed for a photo. Some of the women were subjected to sexually harassing comments and denied use of restrooms for hours. 100 people were arrested that night. Only 25 committed to the work required to hold the City accountable. They help protect the rights of everyone.

Just as we could not bring these important cases without our clients, we cannot bring them without the support of our members and our donors. These clients have courage and perseverance, but few have the legal expertise or funding for a multi-year court battle. They rely on the ACLU for that - and we have it only thanks to our supporters. In honor of our clients and their immense courage, please make a tax-deductible gift today.

2011 in Review: Protect the Vote

2011-12-24T08:00:00.000-05:00

When the calendar turns over on January 1, the struggle to stop voter suppression via ID will continue. House Bill 934 has passed the Pennsylvania House, has passed the Senate State Government Committee (barely), and now sits in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Following the trend around the country, HB 934 creates obstacles to the franchise by mandating all voters at all elections to show one of a narrow list of acceptable ID. That list consists of a current, photo ID issued by the commonwealth or by the federal government; an ID from an accredited college or university; a senior care center ID; or a PA driver's license that has expired within the last year.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania opposes HB 934 because it will inevitably prohibit some U.S. citizens from voting. Research shows that as much as 12 percent of citizens do not have current government-issued ID. Do the math, and that's nearly one million eligible voters in Pennsylvania. When those numbers are broken down to look at demographics, those without ID are disproportionately the elderly, minorities, and people living in poverty. We also expect adverse impact on people with disabilities and people who were recently released from prison.

Meanwhile, one of the Senate supporters of the bill has admitted that he's seen no evidence of the type of voter fraud that ID would prevent.

Once again, the ACLU of Pennsylvania is working in coalition, this time with nearly 40 organizations in Protect Our Vote. This coalition has been doing the strategic work required to stop this bill, and we're getting a lot of great feedback at the state capitol.

The struggle continues, and we need to defeat this bill to protect the vote for everyone. The first few weeks of January will be critical. The Senate returns on January 17, and one Senate supporter has said that this should be done by early February to be ready for the primary in April.

The ACLU works on many important issues, and I would never want to rank any of them by importance. They all matter to someone or everyone. But there are few rights more fundamental to the health of our democracy than the right to vote. It must be vigorously protected. Your support gives us the ability to organize and lobby against this voter suppression tactic. Please consider making a year-end donation to the ACLU of Pennsylvania today because freedom can't protect itself.

2011 in Review: A Six-Year Court Battle Over Voting Rights Education

2011-12-23T13:43:00.001-05:00

Many Pennsylvanians, includingsome parole and probation officers, are not aware that ex-offenders retain their right to vote. Thanks to an ACLU-PA court victory, Pittsburgh buses will soon carry advertisements informing people of the truth.

Pennsylvania law allows ex-offenders to vote once they are released from prison, even if they are still on parole - but confusion about this law leads to misunderstanding and misinformation, and many eligible voters are denied their right to vote, or assume they will be turned away. When the ACLU-PA and Pittsburgh League of Young Voters partnered to promote awareness of ex-offender rights, the Pittsburgh Port Authority turned away their ads.

In August,the Third Circuit ruled the Port Authorityviolated the First Amendment. Although the Port Authority claimed the ads violated policy, the courtheld that rejection was based on the message. After six years of legal battles, we finally have the opportunity to educate Pittsburgh bus riders that ex-offenders have the right to vote. We hope to run the ad on Port Authority buses in advance of the October 9 registration deadline for the 2012 general election. Equally important, this decision establishes precedent protecting freedom of speech from government censorship in public forums.

Confusion over ex-offender voting rights has several likely sources. Many states bar people convicted of felonies from voting - only 14 states (including Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia allow people to vote after they have "paid their debt to society." In 2000, a court struck down a PA law that would have required felons towait five years after their release from prison to register to vote. Despite the court decision, some counties includedinformation about this five-year waiting period on their websites as recentlyas 2008.

A 2005 coalition of the ACLU-PA, League of Young Voters, and other groups decided bus ads were on one of the best ways to educate people aboutex-offender voting rights - but despite repeated negotiations, Port Authority steadfastlyrefused to display the ad. We finally filed suit in August 2006. A federal court ruled in our favor in July 2009, but Port Authority appealed.

A six-year legal battle is an enormous financial strain on any organization, and the ACLU relies on the contributions of individuals like you for our funding. Your support helps us fight to defend the rights of everyone in Pennsylvania - and, in cases like this, to educate them about those rights. Help us continue this work by making a tax-deductible gift today - because freedom can't protect itself.

- Sara in Pittsburgh

2011 in Review: Politics or health? Governor chooses politics

2011-12-22T15:54:00.000-05:00

Today Governor Corbett signed Senate Bill 732, a bill to alter the legal landscape for women's health centers that provide abortion care. The governor signed the bill with little fanfare. He signed it behind closed doors and only announced it via a press release with a brief description of SB 732 and 12 other bills he signed today.

There's been little doubt, almost from the start, that the drive to force abortion clinics to follow ambulatory surgical facility (ASF) regulations has been driven by politics and not by what's best for women's health. While the supporters talked about women's safety, not a single medical association- not one- supported the bill and several opposed. Meanwhile, the supporters of the bill were those who think that women should have no access to abortion care, including the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, the Pennsylvania Family Institute, and the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation.

The supporters used the indictment of Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia as justification for the bill, but the original SB 732- the language that the other side amended into an oblivion- actually addressed the real problem in the Gosnell case- a lack of government oversight. SB 732 originally codified the inspection process for abortion clinics. It was a bit heavy-handed and had some minor problems, but it was certainly better public policy than what the governor ultimately signed. And it actually was a direct answer to the problems that the Gosnell case brought to light.

Instead, zealots used the Gosnell case as an opportunity they've anticipated for years, an opportunity to place burdens so great on clinics that they might be forced to close, temporarily or permanently. Now abortion clinics could be forced to install hospital-grade elevators, construct parking lots and driveways big enough for an ambulance, and double the size of their operating rooms for a medical procedure with a complication rate of 0.1 percent.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania has fought this legislation since February with our allies in Pennsylvanians for Choice, a coalition of advocates and agencies that support women's access to reproductive healthcare. What's beautiful about the ACLU of Pennsylvania is that we can fight these struggles in multiple arenas. Our legislative department takes on bad ideas before they become law and usually does so successfully. If bad legislation gets through, our legal team takes over and takes the government to court. And our community organizers support that work across the board through public education, coalition building, etc. As I write this, our lawyers are analyzing SB 732 to determine if a legal challenge could be viable.

And that's why your support of the ACLU of Pennsylvania is so critical. Without you, there might be one less lobbyist, one less lawyer, one less community organizer to push back when our government tries to erode our rights. I'm at the capitol every session day, and I can tell you that the threat is real. Please donate today - because freedom can't protect itself.

Who's been naughty in Harrisburg? Who's been nice?

2011-12-21T14:05:00.003-05:00

It has been a busy December for the Pennsylvania legislature. They have delivered a number of legislative gifts—good and bad—to the boys and girls of our state. Some were painful setbacks for civil liberties like the final passage SB 732, which restricts reproductive health care access for women by altering the legal regulations for abortion clinics, and the passage of SB 1183, which was signed by the governor yesterday and requires lifetime registration for juveniles who commit certain sex crimes. But there were a few victories too. Here’s a recap of some of the action this month.

The Naughty

Abortion: House Bill 1977 passed the House; Senate Bill 732 passed both House and Senate. HB 1977 bars insurance plans in the health insurance exchange created by federal healthcare reform from covering abortions, with narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and imminent death. Of course, the health insurance exchange doesn’t actually exist in Pennsylvania yet. But just in case the legislature decides to create it, anti-choice advocates in the House wanted to be certain that women couldn’t buy insurance to cover their reproductive health care needs.

SB 732 has been called the worst thing to happen for women’s health in the Commonwealth since the Abortion Control Act passed in 1982. It requires clinics that provide abortion care to comply with hugely expensive and medically unnecessary new regulations. No medical organization supports it, and professional associations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, actively oppose the regulations. Undeterred, SB 732’s advocates insisted it somehow protects women and voted it through the House and Senate. It now awaits a signature or a veto from Governor Corbett.

Juveniles: Yesterday the governor signed Senate Bill 1183, implementing the federal Adam Walsh Act in Pennsylvania. This is a bill that, among other things, requires lifetime registration for juvenile sex offenders. The recidivism rate for juvenile sex offenders is only around 1%, and the collateral consequences of registration (problems finding employment, housing, etc.) can be devastating. At least two states, Texas and New York, have informed the federal government that they will not implement AWA. In Ohio, the first state to implement the law, legal costs to fight off lawsuits alone have cost the state $10 million. If Ohio had not complied with the law, it would have lost $935,000 in federal grant funding.

Meanwhile, the Pennsylvania General Assembly did not hold a single public hearing on the legislation.

The Nice

Capital punishment: The Senate adopted Senate Resolution 6, which calls for a study of capital punishment in the Commonwealth. The resolution creates a task force to study issues including the cost effectiveness of capital punishment, whether there is bias in the selection of defendants for capital trials, and a number of other important issues. We hope that the study will shine more sunlight on how the death penalty functions in Pennsylvania, which is badly.

The … Ambiguous

Immigration: The bad news is that Senate Bill 9, which makes it a felony for an unauthorized alien to possess a public benefits card, passed the House State Government Committee on Dec. 6. We oppose SB 9 because of the risk that it will cause public agencies to deny benefits to people who are entitled to them, because either they lack ID or because the administrative burden of complying with SB 9 would slow down public agencies. The good news is that other, even more radical anti-immigration legislation hasn’t been moving forward lately. Hopefully the legislators have realized how devastating anti-immigration legislation has been in Alabama, Arizona, and Georgia, and will refrain from doing anything so detrimental to our economic recovery.

Voting Rights: House Bill 934, which requires photo ID to vote, is another solution in search of a problem. The Senate State Government Committee passed it on Dec. 12 by one vote, and the bill is now in the Senate Appropriations Committee. There’s no evidence that in-person voter fraud is a problem in Pennsylvania, and legislators may realize that spending state money to implement this unnecessary law isn’t a good idea. We’ll see what happens.

So here’s our New Year’s toast to Harrisburg: “2011 wasn’t as bad as it could have been, though it was plenty bad. Thanks for being done for the year. Also, feel free to take it easy in 2012. In fact, if you’d like to just stay home, we wouldn’t hold it against you.”

Nathan Vogel, Frankel Legislative Fellow, Philadelphia

2011: The Year In Civil Liberties

2011-12-21T13:00:00.000-05:00

It's been a very mixed year for we civil libertarians, with major victories and stunning defeats. On one hand, we're all happy to be out of Iraq - on the other, Gitmo is fast approaching its tenth year in business, and Congress has given the President nearly unchecked authority to detain or execute suspected terrorists. Don't Ask/Don't Tell died in 2011, and New York State doubled the number of LGBT Americans with full marriage rights, but Pennsylvania is once again considering a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. We've dramatically increased the number of Americans with access to decent health care, but Pennsylvanians may soon have to leave the state to get a safe and legal abortion. Through it all, we've been encouraged to see record numbers of Americans take to the streets to make their voices heard - and sickened to see them arrested, beaten, and pepper-sprayed for speaking out in a public forum.

See what I mean? Mixed year.

As we always are, the ACLU has been in the middle of most of these issues, as busy as ever in the courthouse and busier perhaps than ever before in Congress and state legislatures across the country. We've been so busy, in fact, that it's going to take us the rest of the year to tell you about it.

Over the next ten days, we'll review some of the highs and lows of 2011, to let you know what the ACLU has been doing for you - both in Pennsylvania and across the country - and to remind you why we need your support. In return, we hope you will consider becoming a card-carrying member (if you're not already), making a tax-deductible year-end contribution, or both - because if there's one thing we want you to know about our work, it's that we can't do it without you.

Standing up for the Constitution: Brave citizens, independent judges, and vigilant civil rights advocates

2011-12-20T13:51:00.000-05:00

By Guest Blogger Steve Harvey, a partner at Pepper Hamilton and counsel in the Dover intelligent design case

It’s hard to believe that six years have passed since Judge Jones handed down his famous decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, also known as the intelligent design case. He received much praise and some scorn for that decision. The praise was for enforcing the First Amendment in the face of a blatant and fundamentally dishonest attempt by the school board to promote a non-scientific, religious alternative to evolution in public school science class. The scorn came from several misguided national commentators who suggested that because he was appointed by a Republican president, he should have disregarded his oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and favored the school board defendants and their attempt to promote religion.

Thankfully, Judge Jones followed his instincts, his oath, and the law, but the criticism reminded us of the importance of judicial independence. This issue rears its ugly head yet again this week as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is vying to become the Republican presidential nominee, made a public statement attacking the federal judiciary. He decried what he sees as a "steady encroachment of secularism through the courts to redefine America as a nonreligious country." And he said that he would force judges to defend unpopular decisions before Congressional hearings, arresting them to secure their appearance if necessary.

It’s hard to believe that anyone would take these comments seriously, but Mr. Gingrich apparently believes that incendiary attacks on federal judges for doing their jobs will help him win some votes. Let’s hope he is wrong and these attacks backfire on him. And let’s remember all of the federal and state judges who do their jobs every day by enforcing the law to the best of their ability, without fear or favor.

And while we are at it, let’s say a word of thanks to the everyday citizens, like the plaintiff parents in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, who stand up to injustice and illegality by serving as plaintiffs in the name of unpopular causes, like the right to guide their own children in matters of religion and faith. Whether Mr. Gingrich knows it or not, the right to be free from government interference in matters of religion and faith is at the very core of the American political and legal system. That’s why it’s in the First Amendment. We’re counting on brave citizens, independent judges, and vigilant civil rights advocates, like the ACLU, to make sure it never changes. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all!

Today marks the sixth anniversary of the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Greetings from Harrisburg! Good news (yes!) from the state capitol

2011-12-16T10:40:00.000-05:00

The news on civil liberties out of the state capitol isn't all bad. Learn more about three positive developments this week at the General Assembly.

Please note that by playing this clip YouTube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see YouTube's privacy statement on their website and Google's privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU of PA's privacy statement, click here.

Anti-immigrant sentiment overrides legislators’ concern for Pennsylvanians

2011-12-09T11:08:00.001-05:00

When the House State Government Committee passed Senate Bill9 on Tuesday, it also taught a civics lesson on how a legislative body should not make decisions. In rejecting 10 out of 11 proposed amendments,some legislators on the committee seemed to be more interested in demonstratinganimus towards immigrants than in carefully considering the welfare of thepeople of Pennsylvania.

If SB 9 becomes law, it would require applicants for publicbenefits to verify their citizenship or immigration authorization withidentification before they could receive their benefits. We oppose SB 9 because it’s based on abelief—derived more from prejudice than fact—that there are large numbers ofundocumented immigrants illegally collecting public money. There isn’t reliable evidence to support thisclaim. Instead of solving a real problem, SB 9 promotes bias anddiscrimination.

In quick succession, legislators shot down 10 amendmentsthat would have measured and mitigated the harm that SB 9 causes. Oneamendment would have expanded the forms of ID that applicants could use toprove their eligibility. Another would have exempted persons older than 50years of age from SB 9’s requirements, because so many senior citizens lack thekinds of ID that can establish citizenship. The committee even rejected an amendment that would have requiredagencies to study the impact of SB 9 on their programs. SB 9’s supporters weren’t even willing tolearn about the actual consequences of their bill.

The only amendment to pass was the one the chairman offeredhimself. It allows applicants withoutthe required ID to fill out an affidavit promising that they can lawfullyreceive benefits. They are then checkedagainst the SAVE database, a federal program that is intended to checkcitizenship and immigration status. Wewelcome this change, but the amendment contained two other provisions that makeSB 9 substantially more harmful. SB 9now makes it a third degree felony for an undocumented person to possess abenefits card, despite the fact that in some situations federal law permits undocumentedimmigrants to have a benefits card, and requires the state to post identifyinginformation about people unlawfully receiving benefits on a public website. Punishments should fit the crime, and that ishardly the case here.

It’s not too late to stop SB 9. It is still possible to defeat it when itreaches a vote before the full House of Representatives. Between now and then, we need to make sureour legislators know what their priorities should be. Instead of political posturing, we need themto thoughtfully consider how to protect the rights and needs of Pennsylvanians.

--Nate Vogel, Frankel Legislative Fellow

Nursing homes and architects are not our enemy

2011-11-28T15:57:00.001-05:00

On November 15, House Bill 439 became the first piece of Rep. Daryl Metcalfe's anti-immigrant package to sludge its way through the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Standing up to outlandish rhetoric about the so-called "illegal alien invasion", 74 Republicans and Democrats stood up for civil rights and responsible government by voting "No."

It's hard to keep track of the variety of ways the Metcalfe package targets immigrants and civil rights. But this particular bill also aims at people and institutions with professional licenses from the state. HB 439 provides that the state's licensing boards and commissions have to revoke the license of anyone who knowingly employs (or permits the employment of)* an unauthorized alien in connection with the activity the person has a license for.

What does this mean exactly? Who knows. Even the lawmakers couldn't say exactly what this bill could lead to at the House Government Committee meeting on October 4th when they voted it out of committee. Could a hospital lose its license if its cleaning staff hired a person who turned out to be undocumented? Representative Mustio said no (Rep. Josephs disagreed), but a nursing home could. And should. Take that, nursing homes!

Even if you think it's appropriate to punish people who hire undocumented immigrants, this is bizarre way to do it. For one thing, it will be expensive to expand the boards to give them the capacity to do all the monitoring they will have to do. For another, instead of double checking federal immigration authorities, shouldn't professional licensing boards be spending their energy on making sure licensees meet their professions' standards?

Personally, I'd rather the people who give out licenses to architects concentrate on making sure that architects know how to keep buildings from falling down. That seems like a pretty complicated job on its own.

HB 439 now goes to the Senate. How it does there will depend, in part, on how many constituents call their senators to tell them, "Nursing homes and architects are not our enemy. Vote No on HB 439".

*P.S. Does this part mean that you could lose your license if you find out that a colleague is undocumented? So not only can you not hire undocumented employees, you have rat out peers you think might be undocumented?

Nate in Philly

Thanks and Rememberance

2011-11-24T11:47:00.001-05:00

Thanksgiving is a rare kind of American holiday, in that it grows neither out of religious observance nor a commemoration of violence and bloodshed. There are no made-up "wars" over its celebration, corporations don't start pushing Thanksgiving decorations in July, and no one is excluded based on belief or heritage. It doesn't commemorate the conquest of the New World, but rather partnership and cooperation between two very different cultures. Even if it didn't really happen the way we're told, it's an American myth worth celebrating - though some Native Americans probably have understandably mixed feelings about everything that came after dinner.

The point is, it's a time for everyone in America to pause and recognize our good fortune, and give thanks for what we have.

The ACLU lost two dear members of our family this year, each a champion of civil liberties. We remember them and give thanks for their dedication and their service: Spencer Coxe and Henrietta Hoffman.

Spencer was executive director of the Philadelphia ACLU through four decades, a board member for two, and a leader for much longer than that. He guided the ACLU through some of America's most turbulent times, and it is no exaggeration to say that Spencer helped shape American Constitutional law. Though retired from civil liberties work, he visited our Philadelphia office from time to time, breathing life into stories from an earlier generation.

Henrietta was a volunteer in the Philadelphia office, showing up once a week for more than 20 years - longer than any member of our staff. With her regular partner Jean, Henrietta spent Tuesday mornings stuffing envelopes. If you've been a member of the ACLU of Pennsylvania at any time since the late 1980s, chances are it passed through Henrietta's hands. Both she and Spencer lived well into their mid-90s. Henrietta kept her regular Tuesday shift until the very end.

We at the ACLU give thanks for the rights we enjoy. Those rights have not come to us cheaply - countless individuals through many generations have sacrificed life and liberty to defend our rights. Many through combat and military service, but many others through protest and civil disobedience, through litigation, through grassroots movements. While the list of American casualties in combat against foreign foes is far longer, the list of casualties from the enemies of liberty is no less significant. Some have famous names - John Brown, Martin Luther King, Harvey Milk - but thousands of others should be remembered, including civil rights demonstrators, labor movement strikers, anti-war activists, and champions of free expression. Others kept their lives - Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, Mary Harris Jones - but risked everything to do what was right.

These fights continue today, and we thank those who have risked or sacrificed not only their lives, but their freedom, their time, their relationships with family and friends, and their careers to fight for the rights of all of us.

We at the ACLU are incredibly thankful for our members, our supporters, and particularly our hard-working volunteers. These people give us their time, their energy, and their hard-earned dollars to make the work of the ACLU possible. The ACLU is not made up of the people who get paychecks and board seats - it is made up of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who give some part of themselves to keep those rights alive.

Ammunition for your Turkey Day arguments

2011-11-23T12:10:00.001-05:00

Ah, Thanksgiving...that classic American holiday in which families gather together to stuff themselves stupid, watch football, and tiptoe delicately around safe conversation topics. Inevitably, Grampa Joe or Aunt Sally will bring up the latest rant from their favorite pundit, often a criticism of some new and dastardly way the ACLU is destroying the fabric of America. Like any polite relative, you'll avoid engaging and politely change the subject to something non-controversial - like who was on Leno last night. Right?

Ah, who are we kidding? If we were people who avoid engaging in controversial conversation, we wouldn't be the ACLU.

So, should you decide to embarrass your poor family by going point-for-point against your misinformed but opinionated relatives, we want you to be well-armed with the ACLU member's favorite ammunition: logic and cold, hard fact. Here are a few of the most popular lies about the ACLU, and how to argue against them.

MYTH: The ACLU is fighting a war against Christmas

Much as we'd miss our annual deluge of Christmas cards and their heartwarming holiday spirit ("Merry Christmas, you atheist bastards!") the truth is we have nothing against people observing and celebrating Christmas. Personally, I love Christmas. Where we have a problem is where governments implicitly endorse one specific religious belief by putting on Christmas celebrations, and forgetting everyone else.

But the fact is, even when we file a suit, it's always against a government entity and it's against things like nativity scenes and crucifixes - stuff that represents a specific faith, not symbols of a shared cultural season like Christmas trees or Santa. We've never insisted anyone change the name to "holiday tree," and we have nothing whatsoever to do with private stores like Macy's and Walmart choosing to say "Happy Holidays." They do that to try to be respectful of all their shoppers, which to us seems pretty in-line with "peace on earth and good will toward men."

MYTH: The ACLU is suing to remove crosses from military cemeteries.

This is patently untrue, and was made up out of whole cloth to smear the ACLU. In fact, the ACLU believes very strongly in the right of each person to express their religion, and we would fight hard against anyone who told a Christian soldier that he or she could not choose to have a cross on his or her headstone. But don't take our word for it. Check with Snopes.

MYTH: The ACLU sued to stop Marines from engaging in prayer.

Once again, Snop es comes in handy. Patently untrue, and demonstrates a frequent misunderstanding of our defense of religious liberty. The ACLU fights hard to defend the rights of every American to express his or her religion freely. What we oppose is government endorsement or enforcement of religion. This is why, for instance, we will defend the right of a child or children to choose to pray in a public school, but oppose the school's endorsement of such, including any school official leading that prayer.

A recent rumor is that the ACLU is trying to introduce Sharia law into US government, which is as untrue as it is ludicrous. We defend the rights of Muslims to observe their religion as they choose, just as we defend the rights of Christians to do the same. What we oppose is the introduction of those religious laws into the government.

On a related note, there's a great web site, The ACLU Fights for Christians (maintained by a kind supporter) to show anyone who tells you that the ACLU is anti-Christian.

MYTH: The ACLU runs the CIA

Our apologies to guests at the Bachmann Thanksgiving table, but no matter how many times you hear this repeated, it just isn't true.

We're not saying we wouldn't like to be in charge - we have a lot of great ideas, like stopping waterboarding and other torture altogether, closing secret prisons and Guantanamo Bay, and respecting Constitutional requirements like due process and habeas corpus. We've been shouting pretty loud about all those things for a while now, as have the majority of Americans who want the same things - but they don't appear to be charge of the CIA either.

So there you go. There are, of course, no shortage of other lies, misunderstandings, and distortions about the ACLU, but we thought we'd stick with the classics. Granted, you probably won't win any points with your relatives for starting a screaming match. When in doubt, there's nothing wrong with being polite - if you have to, you can always rely on the clip below. Happy Thanksgiving!

Chris in Philly

Economic suicide over immigration hysteria

2011-11-04T10:10:00.007-04:00

On Tuesday, Charlie Thompson of The Patriot News' capitol press team interviewed me about the slate of anti-immigrant bills currently before the state House and the House State Government Committee. That package, which is more appropriately called the "Sabotaging Our Economy Begins at the State Capitol" package, includes a mandate for all employers to use the E-Verify national ID system, a mandate for all local police to enforce federal immigration law, and second-class birth certificates for American-born children of undocumented parents.

Here's the front page story that Thompson wrote.

Of course, a reporter can't write everything his subjects tell him, and I'd like to expand a bit more on what I told him that did not end up in the article.

The first question Thompson asked was, what are your concerns, broadly, about this package of bills? (That's not an exact quote, but that was the essence of his question.) My answer? Supporters of these bills are using misinformation and stereotypes about immigrants to advance their cause. For example:

Legitimate academic research shows that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, commit crime at lower rates than natural born citizens. And yet the primary pusher of this legislation makes wild claims about rapes and murders by "illegal aliens."
Supporters of bills to make English the "official language" of Pennsylvania claim that today's immigrants aren't assimilating. (Note that this is the same complaint that Benjamin Franklin had about the German immigrants of colonial Pennsylvania.) They never cite any research, and in fact, legit studies have shown that today's immigrants are learning English as quickly as ever, and that previous generations of immigrants didn't necessarily assimilate quickly.
Supporters make certain statements about protecting jobs, but states that have passed punitive anti-immigrant laws have found that the economic results have been disastrous.

Oh, those pesky facts.

Pennsylvania's rate of growth is one-third the national average. Our K-12 enrollment is the same as it was 20 years ago. Without immigration, the commonwealth would not have gained in population in real numbers at all over the last ten years. Philadelphia grew for the first time in several decades, thanks to its new immigrant population.

Economically, we cannot afford to do anything that scares people away from our state, as argued by Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute.

Supporters of these punitive bills don't understand that the lines they rhetorically draw around undocumented immigrants and those with authorization disappear the minute these types of bills are enacted. When states like Georgia and Alabama and Arizona pass laws to turn our local police into federal immigration agents and to mandate the E-Verify national ID system with severe penalties, it impacts all immigrants. Why would authorized immigrants stick around in a state where they will be increasingly harassed by the police and discriminated against in the workplace? Why would any immigrant stay in a state in which the leaders of state government use ugly stereotypes about crime, unemployment, and assimilation?

Let the courts decide?

2011-10-28T09:04:00.000-04:00

PA State Senators are avoiding their obligation to be the first line of defense for the Pennsylvania Constitution.

On Wednesday, the State Senate passed Senate Bill 1, the taxpayer-funded private school vouchers bill, by a slim majority, 27-22. Its opponents have a litany of concerns with the bill and the harm it could cause to education in Pennsylvania. One of their most serious concerns is that the bill would almost certainly violate the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But unfortunately, Senators supporting the bill have decided to punt the issue to judges. They plan to enact SB 1 without considering whether it contradicts the Commonwealth’s constitution.

SB 1 would create a program through which the state would provide vouchers to students at Pennsylvania’s lowest performing schools. They could use these vouchers to pay to attend a private school. According to Senator Anthony Williams, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, and the Senate Republicans’ fiscal analysis, no more than about 10% of students at these schools would likely participate and receive vouchers. The money for the vouchers would come directly out of the budgets of the school districts that students were leaving.

The constitutional problems with the bill arise from the provisions about where vouchers can be spent. Families that receive vouchers can use them to pay to attend any private school—including a religious private school. SB 1 does not require that the voucher funds do not help pay for religious instruction.

Pennsylvania’s constitution could not be much clearer that the legislature is not allowed to pass a law like this one. A legal analysis by ten state and national organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Education Law Center, and the Pennsylvania State Education Association, concluded that SB 1 would violate no fewer than four separate provisions of the state constitution. For example, Article III, Section 15 commands, “No money raised for the support of the public schools shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school”. Despite the constitutional command, SB 1 takes money used for public schools and uses it to pay for vouchers to attend sectarian schools. There is little room for doubt: SB 1, if it became law, would be unconstitutional.

So why are legislators spending their time trying to pass it? Senator Jim Ferlo of Pittsburgh asked that question at the Senate Education Committee’s meeting on October 24. Senator Williams’ responded that the legislature should pass the bill and let the courts decide whether it is constitutional or not. After all, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is the final authority for the meaning of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

But the senator left out a critical point: the Supreme Court is not the only authority responsible for protecting Pennsylvania’s constitution.

Every legislator, before taking office, swore, “I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth". This oath is written into the Pennsylvania Constitution, and it is the same oath that judges take. It means that legislators have a duty to try not to pass laws that will violate the constitution and undermine the legal foundations of the Commonwealth.

Yes, the justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania are the last line of defense for the state constitution. But the legislators are the first.

Nathan Vogel, Frankel Legislative Fellow, ACLU of PA

Cross-posted at RocktheCapital.com

2011-10-19T18:51:00.000-04:00

Greetings from Harrisburg! House Bill 934 with its voter ID mandate will effectively disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians. Wendy Bookler talks about her 93-year-old mother, Bea, who has voted in every presidential election since 1940. If HB 934 is enacted, Bea will lose the vote.

Wendy is also on the board of the SeniorLAW Center, one of our allies in opposing HB 934.

Tea Party, ACLU agree: E-Verify is a national ID system

2011-10-12T09:46:00.002-04:00

Tea Party activists say they believe in limited government. The Bill of Rights is all about limiting the power of government. The ACLU defends the people's rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and elsewhere in the constitution. Thus, one would assume that Tea Party and the ACLU would agree quite often. If only it were that easy.

Nevertheless, a few weeks ago a coalition of more than two dozen Tea Party, conservative, and libertarian groups dropped a proverbial bombshell into the politics of immigration. In a letter to Congress and in an ad that ran in Politico, the coalition came out against the federal bill from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) that would mandate the use of the E-Verify national identity system on all employers. In the letter and the ad, the coalition said:

Requiring citizens to secure permission from the Department of Homeland Security to enjoy the fruits of their labor is an unacceptable violation of our civil liberties...

E-Verify:-Creates a de facto national I.D. system - even for citizens;-Violates individual civil liberties such as the right to work & free speech;- Mandates a costly job-killing regulatory burden that cripples small business;-Requires employers to become enforcement agents of the federal government;-Encourages identity theft of citizens.

E-Verify is an online database program administered by the federal government. The databases used in E-Verify are from the Social Security Administration and from the Department of Homeland Security and contain more than 500 million personal data records. If you have a Social Security number, your information is there, on the internet. Under current law, employers can sign up to participate but are not mandated to do so.

The conservative groups agree with what the ACLU has been saying. E-Verify poses major privacy problems and creates the infrastructure of a national identity system. Today employers have access to the data. Who is going to have access to the data in the future?

The conservative coalition's letter and ad had to have been a punch in the gut to Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, who once said that he "was a Tea Partier before it was cool," and other members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly who are trying to mandate E-Verify on all employers. On Tuesday, the House State Government Committee, of which Metcalfe is the chair, is scheduled to take up a slate of anti-immigrant bills, including House Bill 858 to mandate E-Verify.

Our broken death penalty

2011-09-29T12:45:00.005-04:00

Last week, Troy Davis was executed by the state of Georgia. This tragic event, despite the longevity of the events leading up to its conclusion and the focus it has drawn from the media and pop culture, is not by definition an unusual one.

Despite the fact that most Americans like to think of our justice system as being very thorough, especially when it comes to something as final as the death penalty, the fact is that there are too many who have slipped through the cracks. Nationwide, 138 people have been exonerated after being sentenced to death, including six in Pennsylvania, and some have been exonerated after their executions.

During the prosecution process there are too many outside elements that can interfere with the jury’s understanding of the case, leading to wrongful conviction. The largest of these interferences is eyewitness misidentification, which accounts for 75% of the wrongful convictions overturned through DNA testing, and played a major part in Troy Davis’ prosecution. Social science research has proven that the human brain does not have the ability to record events like a camera and is often quite malleable. Thus eyewitness testimony is often extremely inaccurate.

Playing a smaller, though no-less important, part in wrongful conviction is that of Forensic Science misconduct, which, though less talked-about, is slightly more nefarious. Though DNA evaluation has been examined again and again to prove its truthfulness, many other techniques used in the crime lab, such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, fire arm tool mark analysis and shoe print analysis, have received no such examination and are therefore subject to occasional tampering. Other tampering, such as contamination of a crime scene and the planting of evidence can play a part.

Another factor, which may come as a surprise, but plays a no less substantial role, is that of false confessions. People who are being interrogated may in fact have many reasons to confess to a crime that they did not commit, which for mentally-incapable adults may include extreme interrogation lengths and being placed under other forms of duress by law enforcement. However, children and those who are mentally ill are often more likely to falsely confess due to a misunderstanding of the situation or an attempt to please authority figures.

Aside from the transgressions that can occur during the prosecution process, there are several large issues outside the courtroom that must be addressed. The common thought is that it is less expensive to put a prisoner to death than it is to keep them in prison. Contrary to this thought, recent studies seem to show that the death penalty is much more expensive than even life without parole. The lengthy conviction process, the cost of keeping prisoners on death row, as well as that of taxpayer-funded public defenders, all add up to a hefty bill. In fact, the majority of prisoners on death row are among the population too destitute to afford a private attorney, which in addition to the cost to the taxpayer for a public defender, often adds up to a poor defense.

Finally, the last issue at hand is the toughest; that of race. In the state I live, Pennsylvania, nearly 70% of those sentenced to die are members of a racial or ethnic minority. Sadly, this is the case across the country. This is not a reflection of which races are more likely to commit violent crime. It is unfortunately a reflection of which races our justice system are more willing to prosecute and which races our juries are willing to sentence to die.

In a society oriented toward retribution, advocating for the abolishment of the death penalty can be extremely difficult. When presented with these facts, however, more way be willing to reevaluate their views and be ready to accept an end to this still-instinctive aspect of our justice system.

Evan Stultz, ACLU-PA volunteer, Harrisburg

How innocent people are sentenced to death

2011-09-23T10:40:00.003-04:00

Like so many things in life, the average American probably assumes that they or someone they love couldn't be wrongly sentenced to death. The Innocence Project explains how innocent people are convicted of crimes. In the aftermath of the execution of Troy Davis in Georgia this week, it's worth considering how it could happen to you.

While the ACLU of PA takes no position on the innocence or guilt of anyone currently before the courts, we know shady circumstances when we see them.

Your children die in a house fire. Dennis Counterman of Allentown, Daniel Dougherty of Philadelphia, and Cameron Todd Willingham of Texas all lost children tragically in house fires.

Counterman spent 18 years in prison, including 11 on death row, after prosecutors withheld evidence that cast doubt over his guilt and even cast doubt over the cause of the fire. He pled guilty to lesser charges after winning a new trial.

Willingham was executed in 2004. Forensic experts say that not only was he not guilty but the fire wasn't even arson. It was an accident.

Dougherty wasn't a suspect in the house fire that killed his sons until 14 years later when he and his wife went through a messy divorce. Dougherty is on death row today. The evidence in the Dougherty case is eerily similar to that in the Willingham case.

Someone you know is killed. Ray Krone, a native of York County who was a mailman in Arizona, was a regular at the bar where Kim Anacona was a bartender. In December, 1991, Kim was killed at the bar after closing. She had confided in a friend that she was romantically interested in Ray and that he would help her clean up that night. Ray was convicted largely on bite mark evidence, but it was discovered later that five dental experts told the district attorney that the bite mark on the victim did not match Ray. A sixth expert told the DA it did match, and the case moved forward.

Ray spent ten years in prison, including more than three on death row. His appeals options were largely exhausted when he was freed by DNA evidence in 2002. Krone's case was featured in the book The Death Penalty on Trial: Crisis in American Justice by A&E television personality Bill Kurtis.

Acquaintances of William Nieves (pdf) and Harold Wilson were murdered in Philadelphia in separate cases, and both Nieves and Wilson were sentenced to death. Nieves was acquitted at retrial when it was discovered that witnesses had identified the perpetrator as someone of a different race, and Wilson was acquitted at retrial, in part by DNA evidence from someone other than the victims and Wilson.

Walter Ogrod of Philadelphia is on death row today for the murder of a young girl from his neighborhood. No physical evidence ties Walter to the case, and he was convicted only on a questionable confession he gave after 30 hours at the police station and on testimony from a jailhouse snitch who made a career of testifying against fellow inmates. In 2004, City Paper of Philadelphia published a two part series on the case.

You're standing there with a crowd when someone is killed. That's what happened to Troy Davis.

The Davis case has brought energy around the death penalty that I have not seen in 11 years of abolition activism. National ACLU has an action page where you can do more to support the effort to end capital punishment.

Why is this controversial?

2011-09-20T15:06:00.008-04:00

It is hard to believe that preventing the incarceration of innocent people is controversial. But that is the state of justice in Pennsylvania.

Today the advisory committee on wrongful convictions released its report. Committee chair Professor John Rago of Duquesne University School of Law and committee member Judge William Carpenter of Montgomery County presented the report to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I have yet to read the report (it's available here), but Professor Rago and Judge Carpenter talked about some of their recommendations, including blind photo lineups, in which the officer presiding over a witness with a photo lineup does not know who the suspected perpetrator is, and audio and video recording of confessions.

This sounds like common sense. Who in their right mind would accept the incarceration of innocent people? Well, an independent response to the committee's report has been issued by prosecutors, police, and victims' advocates. I have not yet seen that report either, but a reporter tells me that the independent report claims that passing the committee's recommendations will give defense attorneys more room for shenanigans. (Update, 5:50pm: This Associated Press story further explains the position of those who oppose the study and its recommendations.)

Senator Stewart Greenleaf, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the primary sponsor of the 2006 resolution that formed the advisory committee, pre-empted that argument in today's meeting, noting that recording confessions will make it more difficult for defense attorneys to challenge the legitimacy of confessions. He also said that implementing checks to stop wrongful convictions will give appeals attorneys less avenues and will keep guilty people from walking free on the streets.

Opponents of these recommendations need to explain why they fear accountability in the system and why they prefer a system that risks the incarceration of innocent people.

Looming over this, of course, is the imminent execution of Troy Davis in Georgia. No physical evidence links Davis to the murder of Savannah police officer Mark MacPhail in 1989. Seven of the nine witnesses against him have recanted, with some saying that they were coerced by police to identify Davis. Of the remaining two witnesses, one is a possible suspect in the killing.

This morning the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles denied Davis's request for clemency. Davis's execution is scheduled for tomorrow, and the governor has no clemency powers. The state of Georgia is willing to execute a man on no physical evidence and extremely flimsy witness testimony, at a time when the reliability of eyewitness testimony is increasingly called into question.

National ACLU has suggested action steps in response to the board's decision on its blog.

This problem is not isolated to Georgia. There are cases in Pennsylvania that are as weak as Davis's case and as questionable as the case of Cameron Todd Willingham in Texas.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania opposes the incarceration of innocent people. Apparently in Pennsylvania, that's a controversial statement.

When abortion was illegal....

2011-09-16T15:24:00.002-04:00

Cross-posted at We've Had Enough.

I had the incredible privilege of speaking with Linn Duvall Harwell, one of the founders of the Clara Bell Duvall Reproductive Freedom Project at the ACLU about the recent legislative attacks on reproductive rights. During our conversation, Linn shared with me that her husband is in hospice care and doesn’t have long to live. The fact that she wanted to take time to speak with me during such a difficult moment points to her steadfast, lifelong commitment to the issue of reproductive freedom for women.

Linn Harwell’s mother, Clara Bell Duvall was the victim of an unsafe abortion in the 1920s, well before abortion was legalized under Roe V. Wade in 1973. This tragic event stayed with her and became the catalyst for her career and commitment to women’s reproductive rights activism.

During our conversation, she shared her disgust with proposed Senate Bill 732 and said, “I am appalledto witness the continuity of that effort from many years ago to reinstate those kinds of restrictions. For me, it all equals restrictions for women.”

She believes that supporters of the anti-abortion movement lack knowledge of the conditions that existed before Roe V. Wade and “do not know the history that preceded Roe v. Wade and why Roe v. Wade came to be.”

She urges Pennsylvanians to open their eyes to the gravity of the issue and reminds us of a time when things were not so easy, a time that could become a reality once again if we do not take action. “Please don’t take these things for granted. Call your representative and tell them where you are and what you need to prevent tragedies in the public health of our nation,” she said.

She stressed the importance of men’s participation in the effort and believes that educating men about reproductive health and preventative medicine would provide them with a basis to take action. “The relationship of the man who is relating to the woman in need is essential and we are neglecting educating men on this issue,” she said. She believes that her husband’s unwavering support has been a strong presence in her career as an activist and in her role as a mother.

Linn believes "We've Had Enough" could transform the movement:“All my life I have regretted the nature of my mother’s death and so I have worked for women I have never known and I would love to see Pennsylvania pick up and care about people that they don’t know.”

Katherine in Philly

Without English as the official language, the terrorists win

2011-09-15T14:31:00.002-04:00

I just noticed another nugget from yesterday's House State Government Committee hearing on making English the official language of Pennsylvania, thanks to an ally who pointed it out.

In his opening remarks, Rep. Scott Perry, who is the primary sponsor of HB 888, said this:

From a state security viewpoint, the common acceptance of alternate languages allows individuals adept at them to hide in plain sight and communicate freely while avoiding detection or suspicion.

That's right. If English doesn't become the official language of Pennsylvania, terrorists will plan their attacks while sitting in Rittenhouse Square, speaking a foreign language and surrounded by street musicians and Cliff Lee playing wiffle ball with his kids.

Honestly, you cannot make this stuff up.

I like the George Lopez line: "We speak English. We speak Spanish because we don't want to talk to you."

Protecting English from extinction

2011-09-14T16:08:00.005-04:00

The House State Government Committee today debated making English the official language of Pennsylvania. You really just read that. That's what passes for urgent matters at the state General Assembly. Former Speaker Benjamin Franklin would be proud. (Actually, he would. He once worried that German immigrants in Pennsylvania would "Germanize us.")

Our press release questions the need and priority of this issue. You can check that here. There were several things said at the hearing that are also worth noting.

Representative Scott Perry is the primary sponsor of House Bill 888, and as is custom, he had the opportunity to give some comments at the start of the hearing. On the one hand, Rep. Perry said that "language is the tie that binds our society together" and he said, "If you want to become and/or be a part of our society, learn our language."

Ok. Fine. Later Rep. Perry noted the cost of educating the average student is $8950 while the cost of educating an English language learner (ELL) is at least $13,246. Then came the whopper when he said:

Pennsylvania taxpayers simply cannot afford and should not continue to be required to pay the bill(.)

Rep. Perry wants people to learn English because it is "the tie that binds" and he complains about paying for ELL classes. Which teach English.

The other whopper that jolted me out of my seat came from Suzanne Bibby of ProEnglish. Ms. Bibby complained about the federal government's "unfunded mandate" that requires non-English ballot access in voting districts with a minimum percentage of non-English speakers. She worried about the costs counties bear for providing these ballots.

The "unfunded mandate" she complained about is the Voting Rights Act, one of the most important laws ever enacted in U.S. history.

Clearly, the legislature has better things to do with its time than debate this nonsense.

Fraud in the voter ID debate

2011-09-06T14:24:00.004-04:00

On August 23, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Carol Aichele announced her support and the Corbett administration's support for House Bill 934, legislation mandating all voters in Pennsylvania to show unexpired, government-issued photo identification at all elections. In the statement, Aichele claimed that just one percent of eligible voters don't have such ID.

Wait, one percent? I sense something, a presence I have not felt since...

...Ohio debated its voter ID bill. Sure enough, as soon as the secretary made the statement, our voting rights partners in Washington told us that supporters of voter ID floated the one percent number in Ohio, too. The problem? The Ohio number included suspended licenses, people who had moved out of state, and dead people.

And lo and behold, after a little digging by a reporter, it turns out that Aichele's number is probably not quite accurate either. A PennDOT official acknowledged that the number of license holders it gave to the department of state could have included more than just eligible voters.

Here at the ACLU of PA, we're not surprised to find Secretary Aichele on the wrong side of a voting rights controversy. Last year the ACLU of Pennsylvania sued Chester County over inadequate polling services for Lincoln University students during the 2008 election. In the 1990s, the polling place was located at Lincoln, and when students petitioned to move it back, the county actually moved it further away from campus.

One of the defendants in that case was Chester County Commissioner Carol Aichele. Lincoln University, meanwhile, is a historically black university.

Of course, the secretary's boss, Governor Corbett, is no stranger to voting rights controversies. In the closing days of the 2010 campaign, Corbett said of voter turnout in Philadelphia, "We want to make sure that they don't get 50 percent. Keep that down."

Without question, HB 934 would lead to some eligible voters losing the franchise. Those without ID are disproportionately the elderly, racial minorities, the poor, people with disabilities, former inmates, and students. There's one way to keep that vote down: Pass a voter ID law in Pennsylvania.

With HB 934 already passed in the House, the state Senate will have to decide this fall if it is going to embrace the agenda of Representative Daryl Metcalfe or protect the franchise for all Pennsylvania citizens. The Senate can't have it both ways.

"I want to pick the crops"

2011-09-02T12:02:00.000-04:00

“National Security Begins at Home”, but what do these 14 billsbefore the state House have to do with national security?

On Tuesday, August 29^th, the General Assembly metto hear testimony regarding the 14-bill package entitled, “National SecurityBegins at Home”, which Representative Metcalfe (R-12), introduced thissession. Included in this horrendouspackage are bills such as, HB 738 and HB 801, which require police officers tocheck the immigration status of those who are stopped if the officer “suspects”the person/people of being in the US unlawfully (a sure recipe for racialprofiling), HB 858, which mandates that all private businesses use theimperfect E-Verify system, and HB 474 and HB 857, which directly evade the 14^thAmendment’s constitutional citizenship provision, guaranteeing citizenship tochildren born in the United States.

These are just five of the 14 bills introduced. Many of thebills have eerily similar text as the Arizona, “papers please” legislation thatis currently being appealed in federal court.

Some members of the legislature want Pennsylvania to become the sixth state to pass legislation likeArizona’s “papers, please” law that limits the rights of immigrants and PAcitizens alike, and the previous five states are currently in court defendingtheir laws. None of the five states havebeen able to implement their laws.

In fact, most of these issues are not for the state tolegislate, but rather, they are the federal government’s responsibility.

Prior to the hearings, a press conference was held with avariety of speakers who adamantly oppose this bill package. Representative Tony Payton of Philadelphia finishedhis speech by stating, “If you don’t have any ideas to help the economy, sayso. Don’t keep using distractions, suchas this.” The many who opposed the billsstood in the background holding signs, as different men and women spoke againstthe bills. Representative Eddie Day PashinskiofLuzerne County also spoke in opposition of the legislative package. He commented on the necessity of immigrationin our nation’s history and concluded with, “I stand with you for fairness.”

Although the two-day House State Government Committee hearingshad an unequal amount of representation from those opposing (Chairman Metcalfeallowed four pro-immigration speakers and nine anti-immigration speakers), thehearings were chocked-full with extremely unscientific data against the billswith the occasional question from legislators of why illegal immigration waseven a topic that needed to be discussed by the PA General Assembly.

Former Pennsylvania State Representative John Stahl spoke onbehalf of the legislation package representing the Tea Party. Stahl began his presentation (I cannot bringmyself to call his words testimony) by stating that illegal immigration is“destroying every institution of our nation”. Most, if not all, of his statements were based on self-admitted “guesses”and the individuals that he interviewed. Stahl claimed that “illegal aliens collect more than I do on SocialSecurity,” illegal immigrants take “$40 to 65 billion” out of the Pennsylvaniaeconomy, and mentioned a store owner who based his opinions on whether hiscustomers were illegal or not on their mastering of the English language (notto mention that his written testimony puts customerin quotation marks, as if people who do not speak English could not begiven the same title as others who use this particular person’s services).

Directly after Stahl’s performance, Pamela Linares told herstory about the immigration process she had to go through in the US. Linares spoke about coming from Bolivia whenshe was only eight months old, and her struggle growing up without papers. Her story was incredibly moving and the roomwas intently listening to a storythat is common among immigrants. Linares’ parents went to a lawyer while ontheir Visa. The lawyer took the moneybut did not deliver any of the proper documents to the government. It was only years later that the family foundout about this, and because of the error, they were denied legal status foryears.

KayHollabaugh represented Hollabaugh Bros. Fruit Farm and Market in Biglerville,Pennsylvania. Hollabaugh explained thatshe would not have any workers if this legislative package were passed, due tothe problems with E-Verify, and the need for immigrant workers. She mentioned one of the farmers she hadspoken with in Arizona who is now paying workers in cash because of thedifficulties of E-Verify. As a smallbusiness owner, the Members asked her plenty of questions about her farm andthe actual use of immigrant workers. Hollabaugh ended her testimony stating, “I want legal workers, and Iwant to pick the crops”.

Jessica Wood, ACLU-PA communications intern, Harrisburg

If you don't get it, you must be high

2011-09-02T09:26:00.001-04:00

Of the many hot-button issues that are bouncing around therhetoric filled rooms of the state Capitol as of late, one that caught my attentionas being particularly egregious is that of the roadblocks being placed in the wayof the legalization of medical marijuana via House Bill 1653 and Senate Bill 1003. This is, unfortunately, another case of ourlegislators, including those inleadership positions, being completely blind to the interests of the public. Anationwide Gallup poll in November of 2005 showed that 78 percent of Americansbelieve in the legalization of the drug for medical purposes, and a 2010 poll from Franklin and Marshall College found that 80 percent of Pennsylvanianssupport allowing medical authorization of marijuana.

Numerous medical organizations support the access to medicalmarijuana for the ill, including the American College of Physicians, theAmerican Public Health Association, and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Thebenefits to legalizing the drug far outweigh the minimal risks, which are, inmost cases, overblown and anecdotal, with very little basis in fact. Manysubstances which are otherwise highly illegal, such as cocaine and morphine,are used regularly in hospitals, so why not marijuana? Allowing those who are suffering from cancer,glaucoma, chronic pain, epilepsy, or many other diseases access to this drugwould be a great boon. Chemotherapy patients who are too sick to eat or swallowpills sometimes find marijuana an effective treatment. Studies have shown that marijuana relievesnausea, appetite loss, and severe pain. It also has been shown to increase thechances that HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C patients will stay on life-savingmedications.

This is personal for me because I have dealt with epilepsyand would have considered medical marijuana, were it a legal option. Many ofthe opponents to legalization attempt to propose legal alternatives but do nottake into account the fact that these alternatives are too expensive, tooaddictive, and have difficult side effects.

Many of the issues raised by opponents of legalization have,as per usual, very little basis in fact. It has been shown, time and again,that marijuana is actually a very safe drug, safer in fact than our old friendTylenol: there are no medically documented cases of overdose deaths frommarijuana, while over 500 overdose deaths from Tylenol are registered per year.

The old bugaboo,“marijuana as gateway drug” has also been gradually undermined. A new studyfrom the University of New Hampshire seems to show that teenagers who smoke potand move on to other, harmful drugs has more to do with outside factors such asemployment status and stress. It appears that those students who do not finishhigh school, do not attend college, and do not seek gainful employment are morelikely to pursue more…sundry activities to fill their time. Interestingly, agealso seems to close this “gateway”, with these effects subsiding in most peopleby the age of 21.

In theend, our legislature will have to realize that this is an issue ofcompassionate action. There are manypeople who are suffering with horrible conditions much worse than mine thatcould be relieved by the simple administration of this drug. Just like mydecision on what medicine to take for my seizures, it is a private issue, onethat should be decided between a person and their physician, not theirgovernment.

Evan Stultz, ACLU-PA volunteer, Harrisburg

Greetings from Harrisburg! Illegal alien invasion edition

2011-08-31T16:17:00.000-04:00

After two days of committee hearings at the state capitol on Pennsylvania's "illegal alien problem," Lobbyist Andy sat down with Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute to discuss the economics of immigration.

The written testimony that the ACLU of PA submitted to the committee is available at our legislative webpage.

Chalk up another victory against guilty-until-proven-innocent drug testing policies in public schools

2011-07-26T12:56:00.004-04:00

We're now 2-0 against PA school districts who want to force students to pee in a cup in order to join the debate team (or scrapbooking club, or the golf team, or in one of client's cases, Junior Students Against Substance Abuse). A Pike County judge just issued an order preventing the Delaware Valley School District from enforcing its unconstitutional policy requiring students to submit to random drug testing to participate in extracurricular activities and to drive to school.

In his opinion, Judge Joseph Kameen said, "This case involves a fundamental right - that of the Plaintiffs' privacy. Plaintiffs in this matter are forced into making an unconstitutional choice between not participating in extracurricular activities, sports, or parking at school and allowing DVSD to violate their privacy." He later added, "DVSD has failed to show a solid reason for [this policy]…. Granting the plaintiff's request certainly does not harm the public interest. Rather, it will protect it."

Kudos to our clients, sisters A.K. and M.K and their parents, Glenn and Kathy Kiederer, for not taking the easy way out and instead choosing to stand up for their rights and the rights of ALL Delaware Valley School District students.

Read more about this case, M.K. v. the Delaware Valley School District, and our other recent student drug testing case, M.T. v. Panther Valley School District.

Movin' to the country, gonna rot a lot of peaches

2011-07-15T08:56:00.004-04:00

Sometime this summer the PA House State Government Committee is expected to host a series of hearings on a bunch of immigration issues. That's going to be a blast.

What has the experience of other states taught us about state attempts to enforce immigration? In a word, don't do it. (I know that's not a word. I was being ironical.)

Some state legislatures took a pass on excessive immigration enforcement bills, but Georgia dove into the deep end of the pool with a new law that implemented Arizona-style "papers please" policing and that forces employers to use the federal E-Verify database program, which the federal government itself hasn't mandated.

So what's happening in Georgia? Crops are rotting because farms don't have the workers they need. From Jay Bookman (who, by the way, bears a striking resemblance to Ray Romano) at the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Thanks to the resulting labor shortage, Georgia farmers have been forced to leave millions of dollars’ worth of blueberries, onions, melons and other crops unharvested and rotting in the fields. It has also put state officials into something of a panic at the damage they’ve done to Georgia’s largest industry...

The pain this is causing is real. People are going to lose their crops, and in some cases their farms. The small-town businesses that supply those farms with goods and services are going to suffer as well. For economically embattled rural Georgia, this could be a major blow.

I need not remind you of the importance of farming here in Pennsylvania, including dairy farms, fruit orchards, and mushroom fields. (And I just reminded you by typing that sentence.)

The agricultural industry in Oregon isn't waiting around for something bad to happen before reacting. Business groups there have already created The Coalition for a Working Oregon to advocate for reasonable immigration policies that are good for state economies.

The Center for American Progress, meanwhile, has outlined the costs of state enforcement of immigration by simply saying "your state can't afford it." The center notes the costs of enforcement, litigation, and economic loss. It's been well-documented that Arizona has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost business since the passage of SB 1070.

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, who leads the charge on xenophobic, anti-immigrant legislation at the state General Assembly, calls his package of bills the "national security begins at home" package. He'd be better off calling it the "sabotaging our economy begins at home" package. State level immigration enforcement is an economic suicide pact.

The onus is on the business community in Pennsylvania to step up before it's too late. Are they going to stand up for Pennsylvania's economy? Or will they shrink from the fight?

Netflix rates are on the rise - more proof you should be concerned about Net Neutrality?

2011-07-13T20:00:00.010-04:00

If my Facebook and Twitter feeds are any indication, people everywhere are mad about the new rate structure at Netflix. Real mad. Like, agrarian revolt mad. I'm half expecting an angry mob with pitchforks and little red envelopes to start gathering outside City Hall any minute.

The anger at Netflix took me back to November, when a smaller number of tech-nerds raised a small outcry about a move by Comcast against Netflix and partner company Level 3. As Tony Bradley summarized it at PC World:

Comcast--which has its own on-demand streaming content and pay-per-view movies--demanded a recurring fee in exchange for allowing Netflix streaming media content to flow unfettered through its network. The fee--which Netflix backend provider Level 3 Communications agreed to pay to avoid service interruptions for Netflix customers--feels a lot like extortion a' la paying mob "protection money" to avoid "bad things" happening to your business.

The story made very small ripples, mostly among the tech blogs and we civil liberties wonks, but there was no great public outcry. Until now. This is not to say that Comcast's "extortion" is the only cause behind a rate increase at Netflix - there are other factors, including demands for a larger piece of the action from the movie and TV studios who produce content, and of course Netflix's own profit motive - but a 60% sock in the wallet to Netflix customers should serve as a reminder of something the ACLU has long been urging: the dire need for strong net neutrality rules.

As the Internet has become a critical part of our daily lives, we users have taken for granted that we are all experiencing the same Internet - but we are trusting private corporations, in most cases, to bring us that content. Like prison guards sorting our mail, those corporations have absolute power over what data reaches us, how fast, and at what cost. Until recently, the motive to filter user data was not strong enough to justify the cost - but with online delivery of music, movies, and television developing into a multi-billion dollar industry, the motive is there. The question is, do they have the right?

Net neutrality laws and policies are murky at best, full of loopholes and largely written by lobbyists from the same companies they are meant to regulate. Major telecom corporations, including Comcast as well as AT&T, Time Warner, and others, have invested heavily into opposing strong net neutrality rules. The ACLU is a strong proponent of net neutrality, as are groups including the Electronic Freedom Foundation, Free Press, and others.

Our concern is less with the price of streaming movies and television shows, and more with the other ways in which companies might restrict or filter Internet traffic. If Comcast can selectively filter Netflix, what's to say they wouldn't filter out individual expression? It's not unprecedented - in 2007, AT&T censored a live-streamed Pearl Jam performance, silencing Eddie Vedder's political statement against then-President George W. Bush. In 2005, Canadian telecom Telus blocked all of its users from accessing the web site of a union that was on strike against Telus.

Net neutrality has always proven an issue difficult to communicate. I've tried to explain it to people, and it usually takes a few seconds before their eyes glaze over. It's not a threat that seems real to most of us. We, the first generation of Internet users, have grown up in the electronic version of the wild west, and we've taken it for granted. Even Daily Show resident expert John Hodgman has a difficult time articulating the issue:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Net Neutrality Act

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

The folks on my Facebook and Twitter feeds are mostly angry at Netflix, and rumors are flying of a mass customer exodus. Whether that will happen remains to be seen, but if it does it plays right into Comcast's wishes - those customers aren't going to ditch their ISP. Maybe instead they'll upgrade their cable package, and get their streaming content from the same company who brings the Internet into their home.

Maybe, though, some of them will see the $6 a month for what it is: one of the early bricks in the wall that's being constructed between customers and the free and open Internet.

As goes Kansas, so goes Pennsylvania?

2011-07-12T11:02:00.003-04:00

Pro-big-government activists are implementing their strategy to rollback women's access to reproductive healthcare all over the country, not just in Pennsylvania. The strategy goes a little something like this: Alter the legal requirements for abortion clinics, under the guise of "patient safety" (because we're all supposed to believe they want women to have safe access to abortion), and then watch the clinics scramble to meet the requirements. Poof! No more access to safe abortion!

Note that I didn't say no more abortions. There will still be abortions. With less clinics able to offer care, though, women seeking abortions will potentially seek care via less safe methods, including self-induced abortions and from illegal providers like Kermit Gosnell.

Pennsylvania is facing that threat with Senate Bill 732 and House Bill 574, both of which have passed one chamber of the state legislature. WPSU-FM laid out the arguments in a story yesterday.

The pro-big-government activists have pursued a similar strategy in Kansas. The requirements were different, and the KS Department of Health only gave the clinics two weeks to react. But the strategy is the same.

Here in PA, we've predicted that the enactment of SB 732 or HB 574 could lead to clinics closing or no longer offering abortion services. It would also likely lead to costly litigation.

And that's exactly what has happened in Kansas. Two of the state's three clinics were unable to comply, and they filed suit. A federal judge ruled in their favor and imposed a temporary restraining order on the new legal requirements.

Some states have implemented ambulatory surgical facility regs on abortion clinics that offer abortion beyond a certain period of weeks gestation, but we are aware of no state that has implemented ASF regs for all abortion clinics like SB 732 and HB 574. If enacted, this law would make Pennsylvania the most extreme of the extreme. And like Kansas, Pennsylvania can expect a costly constitutional lawsuit on its hands.

Greetings from Harrisburg! Summer break edition

2011-07-01T12:56:00.000-04:00

The legislature has left Harrisburg for the summer. Civil liberties are safe! Find out what went down in the mad legislative rush this week as the General Assembly finished the state budget.

55 hours out, abortion's on tap. Again.

2011-06-28T16:34:00.002-04:00

It really is incredible. As I write this, the Pennsylvania General Assembly is 55 hours out from its deadline to pass its annual state budget. All of the bills are lining up for passage just in time to beat the deadline on Thursday, but it has been a mad rush here at the end, especially for those legislators who predicted that the budget would be done in May.

Even in the midst of all of this, the state House is inconceivably teeing up not one but two bills to rollback women's access to reproductive healthcare. Senate Bill 3, which cuts off insurance coverage of abortion in the exchanges created by healthcare reform, and Senate Bill 732, which alters the legal requirements abortion clinics must follow, have both bounced out of committee and are headed to the House floor for a vote. Because it was amended in the House Health Committee, SB 732 would have to go to back to the Senate for a vote on "concurrence," but without an amendment, SB 3 could head to the governor after passage in the House.

If anyone needs some help understanding the dangers of SB 732, check out this news from Kansas. Abortion clinics are struggling to meet new legal requirements there:

Kansas health regulators said today that the abortion clinics they’ve inspected so far have failed to meet the requirements to get a license under a law that takes effect Friday...

The new licensing law requires clinics to be inspected twice a year, including one unannounced review. It also spells out standards for operations, supplies, facilities and medical procedures.

The regulations total 36 pages. Among other things, they require any physician performing an abortion to have clinical privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. They also require each facility to have drugs and equipment to deal with a medical crisis such as a heart attack or an allergic reaction to medication.

They also contain a number of requirements for the building including dressing rooms for staff that are equipped with a toilet, a sink and a place to store clothes. The procedure rooms are also required to be 150 square feet and the recovery area must be at least 80 square feet per patient.

The rules also set the temperature for the recovery rooms (between 70 and 75 degrees) and the procedure room (between 68 and 73 degrees).

The regulations were sent out to providers on June 17, only days before the inspections.

Sound familiar? The situations aren't totally analogous since the Kansas requirements are different, but the strategy is the same: Alter the legal mandates in a way that creates a burden for the clinics, thus potentially cutting off women's access to a legal right.

The supporters of HB 574 and SB 732 can wrap themselves in the language of patient safety all they wish, but the reality is that this legislation is straight out of the playbook of those who believe that the government should make medical decisions for women. And that is what puts patient safety at risk.

Reflections on last night's state House vote on voter ID

2011-06-24T09:44:00.003-04:00

I haven't been lobbying for a long time- four years...well, 11, including my activist, pre-lobbyist days- but I haven't seen a scene quite like the one on the PA House floor last night. Chaos reigned on the House floor as members gave catcalls, shouted each other down, attempted parliamentary maneuvers to stop the bill, and warred with the Speaker of the House. The primary sponsor of the bill refused to answer questions about his own bill at least seven times. The ACLU of PA is non-partisan- fiercely non-partisan, as our legal director says- but we'll give credit where credit is due. The House Democrats fought hard against the voter suppression scheme in House Bill 934. The Protect Our Vote coalition didn't prevail, as the House passed the bill, 108-88. But we made a lot of progress. I tweeted throughout the night and a little bit this morning but want to collect some of those thoughts here.

First, six years after the last vote on voter ID, which was vetoed by then-Governor Rendell, more legislators get it. In 2005, the voter ID bill passed the state House with 135 yes votes, including 31 Democrats. In 2011, they had just 108 yes votes- seven votes shy of defeat- and zero Democrats voted yes.

I get the need for the parliamentary move to end debate on a bill. Without it, the minority can essentially filibuster a bill by talking and talking and talking until everyone is tired of it. But on this occasion, the move by the House Republicans to call to "the previous question" looked especially horrendous, for two reasons. One, many of us believe that, intended or not, the voter ID initiative is a policy that disenfranchises U.S. citizens, so it is truly ironic that the majority would suppress debate on a bill that could suppress voters.

Two, and perhaps worst of all for the House GOP, after the debate was cut off and the final vote was taken, multiple members stood up to submit their comments for the record because they did not have an opportunity to present those comments verbally. Those submitting comments included Rep. Margo Davidson, Rep. Vanessa Lowery Brown, Rep. Ron Waters, Rep. Thaddeus Kirkland, and Rep. Joe Preston.

What do these members all have in common? They are all members of the Legislative Black Caucus. With America's dark and tragic history of suppression of the black vote lingering in the background, it is particularly appalling that these members did not have an opportunity to speak.

As House Speaker Sam Smith adjourned the chamber for the night around 10:45pm, Rep. Preston was heard yelling, "This is worse than Mississippi!"

We have an uphill climb in defeating this bill. But the supporters didn't steamroll in the House, as expected. I told our allies at the start that we need to make this vote as uncomfortable as possible and see where the chips fall. We have barely begun to fight.

(Be sure to check out the interview I did immediately after the House vote on The Rick Smith Show. Rick gets it.)

24 hour victories

2011-06-23T08:34:00.003-04:00

When defending civil liberties at a state legislature that is hostile to them, we have to hang our hat on all victories, no matter how small, even if they last just a few months, a few weeks, or even 24 hours.

Yesterday had the potential to be a rough day at the PA General Assembly, particularly in the House. Somehow we came out of it almost completely unscathed.

Voter ID, HB 934: We expected the House to vote on final passage. It never happened. The House adjourned abruptly just after 4pm without a vote on the bill. Also, more good news on this front yesterday. The AARP of Pennsylvania sent a letter to all House members expressing their opposition.

I still expect this bill to get a vote today or at least before the summer recess. But we'll take victories where we can get them. Rep. Mike Sturla of Lancaster had some insight on the two week delay of this bill earlier this month:

House GOP leaders delayed this bill as long as they could, but, needing budget votes from the Paranoid Delusional faction within the Republican Caucus, we now find ourselves devoting hours to debating a voter suppression bill, rather than, you know, discussing a state budget.

ID for aid, SB 9: More "papers, please" legislation. This bill denies public aid to anyone who is unable to produce government-issued ID. The House State Government Committee was expected to take up this bill but instead held it over. The bill will be part of a series of hearings the committee is going to hold over the summer on immigration issue. Mind you, without credible evidence of ineligible persons receiving benefits, it's not an immigration issue at all but is, instead, a poverty issue.

Publicly-funded private school vouchers, SB 1/HB 1708: There were some signs that a compromise on school vouchers might be jammed through before the legislature finishes the state budget, which is due June 30. On Tuesday, the House Education Committee posted notice of hearings scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday on this issue. But the Democratic chairman of the committee, Rep. James Roebuck of West Philly, objected because the notice did not follow House rules on sunshining a hearing. To his credit, the majority chairman, Rep. Paul Clymer of Bucks County, agreed and promptly cancelled both hearings.

There was some bad news...

Abortion coverage in the insurance exchanges created by healthcare reform, SB 3: We got crushed. This bill was voted out of the House Insurance Committee on a vote of 22-2. The legislature is struggling to finish the budget by the June 30 deadline (and completely missed their own goal of finishing it by the end of May) but has plenty of time to deal with abortion, apparently.

"Why didn't I know that I was tested for HIV?"

2011-06-21T16:34:00.003-04:00

Among the rush of bills being considered by the state legislature before the pending budget deadline- which is when it flows downhill, if you know what I mean- is Senate Bill 260. This bill eviscerates privacy protections that currently exist in state law on HIV testing.

Under current law, a patient must give written informed consent before being tested for HIV. In common language, that means that a patient gets information about HIV and about the test and signs off on taking the test. Sounds about right, right?

Well, a group of doctors has been pushing to get this requirement deleted from law, and that's why we're dealing with SB 260. The docs want the current requirement replaced with "documented informed consent," in which the doctor asserts that the patient consented, or opt-out testing, in which the patient must sign to get out of the test. Why do they want this? That depends upon whom you ask. They say they want more people to get tested for HIV. Everyone wants that. But there's nothing in current law that prohibits doctors from encouraging their patients to take an HIV test. If the doctors want universal testing, they should offer HIV tests to everyone and not offer tests only when they think a patient's lifestyle warrants it.

The cynics among us (me included) believe that the doctors want this portion of the law deleted because it's less work for them. Get rid of that pesky pre-test counseling and written informed consent and they can jam testing on their patients.

Some states have laws requiring pregnant women to opt out of HIV testing, and surveys indicate that some women feel pressured into taking the test. Patients who were younger, unemployed, and who did not have a regular healthcare provider were more likely to feel pressured, according to the research. And in some cases, patients did not even know that they have been tested.

Why does this matter? It matters because, unfortunately, HIV still carries a stigma. A 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 23 percent of Americans would not be comfortable with an HIV-positive roommate, 35 percent of parents would not be comfortable with an HIV-positive teacher teaching their kids, and a slim majority of 51 percent are not comfortable with an HIV-positive person doing food preparation.

It matters because an HIV diagnosis requires lifelong care. Pressuring a patient into a test or even tricking them into a test is no way to start that care.

SB 260 is bad news for patients. It opens the door to paternalistic care by doctors and disempowers patients. We've come a long way on HIV. But we still have a long way to go. Patients are better protected by current state law and not by SB 260. There's no need to mess with a good thing.

HB 574, the Mensch amendment, & the pro-government Trojan horse

2011-06-16T11:22:00.003-04:00

We're going to keep beating the drum over what's happening on reproductive rights at the state capitol in Harrisburg. Let me be clear, yet again: Women's access to reproductive healthcare is in serious jeopardy due to several pieces of state legislation. House Bill 574 and the amended Senate Bill 732, amended and hijacked by Senator Bob Mensch of Easton, would alter the legal playing field for abortion clinics in ways that would be so onerous that clinics would have to spend hundreds of thousands, maybe over a million, dollars to comply.

Supporters of HB 574 and the Mensch amendment, including the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference and the Pennsylvania Family Institute, have wrapped themselves in the language of women's safety, as if we're all supposed to believe that suddenly they want women to have safe access to abortion care. Try wrapping your head around that one.

But yesterday the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference showed their true colors in an email sent to their listserv. The Conference made clear their true reasons for supporting the legislation and implied that they support the legislation because it will, indeed, cut off access to abortion care:

Today, the Senate voted 38 to 12 to pass Senate Bill 732, which, thanks to the Mensch Amendment added on Wednesday, June 8, would hold abortion facilities to the same fire and safety standards, personnel and equipment requirements, and quality assurance procedures as other freestanding ambulatory surgical facilities. The Mensch Amendment was a courageous stand for the pro-life cause. (emphasis added)

"A courageous stand for the pro-life," i.e. pro-government, "cause"? Need I say more? Only the American Family Association of Pennsylvania- the crazy Uncle Charlie of the pro-government, anti-gay crowd in PA- has been honest enough to admit that they're supporting the bills because they could close clinics. Diane Gramley of AFA of PA sent an email to their listserv on May 9 that said:

The passage of such legislation would significantly reduce the number of abortions, abortion facilities and abortionists in Pennsylvania.

The pro-government advocates can try to hide behind the language of "safety," but their motivations are obvious.

(Aside: I've been struggling with what framing to use to describe those who want women to have no access to reproductive healthcare. I'm not a fan of "pro-life" or "anti-choice." I've settled on "pro-government" for the moment because these are people who believe that the government should make private medical decisions for women. If you have any other ideas, let me know.)

Update, 12:50pm: The Lancaster Intelligencer Journal has called out the supporters of HB 574 and the amended SB 732 for the same reason.

Forcing clinics to enlarge room sizes, which already are covered by building codes, or replace existing elevators with hospital-grade elevators has nothing to do with protecting a woman's health.

Pennsylvania has strict abortion laws. That's as it should be.

But the Gosnell situation is being exploited to make it even more difficult for women in the state to obtain an abortion.

Greetings from Harrisburg! The ongoing abortion saga

2011-06-15T16:23:00.000-04:00

The state Senate passed the amended Senate Bill 732, requiring abortion clinics to follow the ambulatory surgical facilities regulations. Plus, Senate committees moved bills on prison reform and blocking the implementation of Real ID. Learn more with this update, and check out our legislative webpage.

Greetings from Harrisburg! Reproductive rights in crisis in PA

2011-06-08T17:13:00.000-04:00

The state Senate passed an amendment today (June 8) to require freestanding abortion clinics to follow the same regulations as ambulatory surgical facilities. Learn more about this and the latest on an attempt to require all voters at every election to show photo ID.

Protection by prosecution?

2011-06-06T08:30:00.002-04:00

On Friday, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette published a letter to the editor co-signed by the Juvenile Law Center, the PA Psychiatric Society, and the ACLU of PA. The letter asks a basic question: How does prosecuting kids for sexting protect them? Protection by prosecution?

Here's the letter:

Educate teens

House Bill 815, which proposes to make any teen sexting a criminal offense, was passed by the state House of Representatives on May 23. HB 815 is being promoted as a measure to protect teens from possible exploitation -- through arrest, humiliation and saddling children with criminal records. Protection through prosecution?

This bill would make it possible for district attorneys to prosecute any teen who sends or receives any nude or partially nude photo -- even when a photo has only been shared consensually between two individuals.

Lawmakers should rightfully worry about protecting children from individuals who intend to harm by disseminating photos without consent or those who try to coerce others into taking and sending photos, including sexual predators or bullies -- something Sen. Stewart Greenleaf's SB 850 addresses more appropriately.

HB 815 fails to make the important distinction between consensual activity and cyberbullying -- two very different actions. It drags teens into the criminal justice system even when there are no victims, and creates a barrier to reporting abuse. If HB 815 passes, even the victim can be prosecuted. Kids who are coerced into sending photos are less likely to report the crime when they themselves may be prosecuted.

Teenagers make foolish mistakes. Does that make them criminals? We need to educate teens about the dangers of risky behaviors like sexting, not prosecute them. Criminalizing consensual sexting does the exact opposite of what it was intended to do. It creates victims. Let's focus on protecting children from predators, not district attorneys.

MARSHA L. LEVICK
Deputy Director and Chief Counsel
Juvenile Law Center
Philadelphia

DEBORAH SHOEMAKER
Executive Director
Pennsylvania Psychiatric Society
Harrisburg

The letter also was signed by Andy Hoover, legislative director, American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.

This week at the state capitol: Voter ID, Abortion, HIV, Oh, my!

2011-06-05T11:26:00.004-04:00

Another week of session at the state capitol is upon us. And the attempts to erode your rights continue.

We expect House Bill 934, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe's voter ID bill, to get a vote in the state House this week. The bill would require all voters at every election to show unexpired, government-issued photo ID, effectively disenfranchising a large swath of U.S. citizens who do not have such ID. Supporters are chasing the ghosts of voter fraud while providing no credible evidence of fraud. And my personal favorite, they equate voting with driving a car, getting a library card, and renting a movie at your local Blockbuster store (if you still have one). So the cornerstone of our democratic experiment, the vote, is equal to your ability to go down the street and pick up a copy of Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Gnarly.

The New York Times published a story on this vast right wing conspiracy last week.

On the Senate calendar, two abortion bills, SB 732 and SB 3, continue to linger menacingly, and there's a good chance that the Senate takes up one or both of these bills this week. SB 732 beefs up the inspection process for abortion clinics. While there are some minor problems with that bill, the real issue is with an amendment by Senator Mensch of Easton that alters the legal requirements for clinics in such a way that the clinics would have to spends hundreds of thousands and maybe more than a million dollars in building renovations and staff increases.

SB 3, meanwhile, prohibits insurance companies from offering coverage of abortion care when they participate in the insurance exchanges, or marketplaces, created by federal healthcare reform. That includes policies that are purchased with private money. Sounds like a government takeover of healthcare....

Finally, on Tuesday, the House Human Services Committee is scheduled to consider Senate Bill 260. This bill erodes the privacy protections currently in state law on HIV testing. It replaces a requirement of written informed consent with "documented" informed consent, meaning the doctor could sign off on the test instead of the patient; allows doctors to force patients to opt out of an HIV test, rather signing into the test; and eliminates the requirement in law for pre-test counseling. The ACLU of PA opposes this bill for privacy reasons. Unfortunately, HIV still carries a stigma that can lead to discrimination, and it is important that patients not feel forced into a test. I'm also not clear on why withholding information from patients is a good thing, and the supporters of this bill have yet to respond to that point.

As always, you can find more details about our positions on these and other bills at our legislative webpage.

Greetings from Harrisburg! Win (temporarily) on reproductive rights

2011-05-26T10:23:00.003-04:00

The Pennsylvania Senate delayed votes on legislation that would adversely affect women's access to reproductive healthcare in the commonwealth. Learn more with this video update from legislative director Andy Hoover, and find memos, press releases, and other statements at our legislative webpage.

Please note that by playing this clip YouTube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see YouTube's privacy statement on their website and Google's privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU of PA's privacy statement, click here.

Greetings from Harrisburg! The week the dam started to crack

2011-05-17T17:27:00.000-04:00

Last week the General Assembly compromised civil liberties in multiple ways. Learn more in this video and at our legislative webpage.

Next week at the state capitol: When it rains, it pours

2011-05-06T15:30:00.007-04:00

I'll try not to be overly dramatic. But the s**t is hitting the fan at the state capitol. Here's what could be/will be on tap for next week.

House Bill 574, re: altering legal guidelines for abortion clinics. This bill could cost freestanding abortion clinics to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in building renovations and staffing increases and could put those clinics out of business or at least increase dramatically the cost of abortion care. Supporters of the bill include the Pennsylvania Family Institute and Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, organizations that oppose women's access to abortion care. That says plenty.

Interestingly, while supporters of the bill have claimed that Philadelphia DA Seth Williams supports the bill, after the indictment of West Philly "Doctor" Kermit Gosnell, DA Williams has said, no, I don't.

HB 574 has been moved from the House Tabled Calendar to the House Calendar, and the word is that it is going to get a vote next week. We have an action alert posted on it. Take action now!

House Bill 934, re: voter suppression by ID. The House State Government Committee will vote on Monday on this bill to mandate photo ID at the polls. The problem? Approximately 11 percent of US citizens do not have government-issued ID, and they are disproportionately the elderly, the working poor, and African-Americans. In other words, this is an ol' fashioned voter suppression tactic that harkens back to the darkest corners of American history. Our friends at Project H.O.M.E. have posted an action on HB 934.

This just in! Late word has come in this afternoon that the Senate may take up Senate Bill 9, re: mandatory government-issued ID for public aid, and SB 637, re: forcing state contractors to use the federal E-Verify database program. We oppose both bills.

Hearings! Hearings! It's not all bad news. On Wednesday, the Senate Communications & Technology Committee will hold a hearing on SB 354, which would prohibit Pennsylvania's participation in the federal Real ID Act, and on other privacy issues. I'm testifying at that hearing and at a joint hearing of the Senate and House State Government committees on redistricting on Thursday. The latter is an open discussion about redistricting.

The hits just keep on comin'!

The Update, 4:15pm: I just got the Senate Appropriations Committee agenda for Monday. It includes SB 637 and SB 9...and SB 3, which prohibits insurance companies that participate in the insurance exchange created by healthcare reform from covering abortion care. I wasn't kidding when I said that the hits just keep on comin'.

This week at the state capitol

2011-05-02T16:17:00.003-04:00

Day One of this session week at the state capitol has passed, but the real fun begins tomorrow.

On Tuesday at 10am, the House Judiciary Committee will consider House Bill 815, to create a new crime of "sexting." This bill creates criminals out of dumb teenagers being dumb teenagers. In the shadow of the Luzerne County juvenile court scandal, one would assume that the legislature would tread lightly when it comes to criminalizing our kids, but this bill is like killing a gnat with a sledgehammer.

Fortunately, there is an alternative proposal in the Senate, SB 850, which criminalizes sexting when one person harms another. SB 850 is already out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The ACLU of PA doesn't support SB 850...but we also don't oppose it. We oppose HB 815, and the ACLU-PA memo submitted to the House Judiciary Committee is available at our legislative webpage.

It must be the week for dueling House-Senate proposals on civil liberties. On Wednesday, the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee will consider Senate Bill 732, which makes alterations to the inspection process for abortion clinics. SB 732 has some minor problems, including patient and employee privacy issues, but we're putting all of our energy into stopping HB 574, which would impose a complete rewrite of the legal playing field for clinics, potentially putting them out of business. In fact, we just posted this action alert against HB 574. Please take action!

Our friends in the immigration advocacy community will hold a press conference to answer some of the anti-immigrant vitriol out there on Wednesday. And SB 1, the school vouchers bill, continues to hang out there after being re-referred to the Senate Education Committee. Senator Piccola says that he has an agreement with the Corbett administration on revisions, but no one knows if he has the votes to pass the bill in the Senate. Time will tell.

Anti-choice advocates want safe access to abortion. Wait, what?

2011-04-29T15:53:00.004-04:00

This is rich. Anti-choice advocates are supporting House Bill 574- a bill to alter the legal requirements for abortion clinics- and they're framing their support by saying they want safe conditions in Pennsylvania's abortion clinics. The Pennsylvania Family Institute made this point in a Patriot News op-ed, and the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference repeated the same message in an action alert last week.

Reality check. These organizations want women to have no access to abortion care. Do they really expect us to buy this idea that they want women to have safe access to abortion?

HB 574 would rewrite the legal landscape for clinics in such a way that many clinics in Pennsylvania could close. Abortion clinics already follow a long list of laws and regulations, including required equipment and medical supplies, hospital transfer agreements for emergency services, equipment required for anesthesia, clinical staff licensing requirements, laboratory and pathology requirements, required blood tests specific to abortion care, extensive reporting requirements for each abortion, abortion facility requirements, and complications reporting. Abortion is the only medical procedure in the crimes code, for crying out loud.

By changing the legal playing field for abortion clinics, HB 574 would force clinics to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to alter their operations to comply with the law.

And that's really why these anti-choice advocates support the bill. They know it could further limit women's access to abortion care in Pennsylvania. But that could lead to a public health crisis in Pennsylvania of significant proportions. Pennsylvania women won't stop needing abortion care but will be forced to go out of state or to go to disreputable providers. This will particularly impact poor women and rural women.

Dr. Gosnell allegedly committed some terrible crimes. But abortion providers in Pennsylvania who give safe, legal care don't deserve to be punished for his crimes. That would be the tragedy of HB 574.

Greetings from Harrisburg: school vouchers, LGBT non-discrimination, and HIV testing

2011-04-27T16:18:00.000-04:00

There were just two days of session this week at the state capitol in Harrisburg. Check out the latest update, including news on taxpayer-funded school vouchers, LGBT non-discrimination, and HIV testing.

This week at the state capitol

2011-04-25T15:55:00.004-04:00

It's a short week at the state capitol, with session just tomorrow and Wednesday. Hopefully the General Assembly can keep the attacks on civil liberties to a dull roar.

Senate Bill 1, re: taxpayer-funded private school vouchers, will likely get a Senate floor vote this week. If it's coming up for a vote, that probably means it's going to pass, but for a few weeks, there's been speculation that the votes weren't there to pass it since the planned vote the week of April 11 imploded. Either way, this vote will probably be a heckuva lot closer than supporters would have liked. And that's good for those of in opposition.

A few bills continue to linger on their respective chamber's calendars- Senate Bill 637, forcing state contractors to use the Big Brotherly E-Verify database program, and House Bill 574, forcing new and extremely expensive- as in going-out-of-business expensive- regulations on abortion clinics. Neither bill has yet been to their appropriations committees, though, and that is typical protocol. The House will probably finish up its welfare reform debate, including House Bill 1297, which forces some recipients of public aid to take drug tests.

I probably don't need to say this, but we oppose everything listed above. And you can always find our latest public statements on legislation at our legislative webpage.

Mom publicly shares her pain in support of juvenile justice reform

2011-04-14T09:53:00.006-04:00

Legislative committee meetings are usually pretty dry affairs. Legislators and staffers pour through the details of bills while wonkish advocates look on.

But that was not the case in the PA Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. The committee considered- and ultimately passed- a package of bills to reform Pennsylvania's juvenile justice system in response to the court scandal in Luzerne County, where two judges took kickbacks from a private detention corporation in exchange for sending more kids to the facilities.

There in support of the legislation was Sandy Fonzo. Ms. Fonzo became the face of the Luzerne scandal when she publicly lashed out at Judge Mark Ciavarella in February. In a brief statement, Ms. Fonzo told the committee the story of her son, Ed Kenzakoski. Ed was an all-star wrestler with high hopes when he was arrested for drug paraphernalia. His family thought he would get a sentence of community service, but instead Ciavarella sentenced Ed first to 30 days in a facility and then to several months at a boot camp more than an hour's drive from his home. Ms. Fonzo said that he returned an angry, depressed young man, a far cry from the happy teen Ed had been before he encountered Ciavarella. Last year, at the age of 23, Ed shot himself to death.

As Ms. Fonzo told her story at Tuesday's committee meeting, I could hear sniffles around me and noticed several people wiping their cheeks. This was not just another day at the legislature.

After Ms. Fonzo finished telling her story, the committee chairman, Senator Stewart Greenleaf, told her that her loss would not go unnoticed at the legislature.

The ACLU of PA supports SB 815, prohibiting parents and guardians from waiving counsel for juveniles, and SB 817, prohibiting the use of shackles on juveniles in court, and we look forward to helping this legislation find its way to the governor.

Video of Ms. Fonzo's statement and the statements of Senator Lisa Baker (R-Luzerne) and John Yudichak (D-Luzerne) is available at the PA Senate Republicans' website. You won't regret taking a few minutes to watch it. You can also watch an interview from the Today show with Sandy Fonzo and her lawyer and friend of the ACLU of PA Marsha Levick of the Juvenile Law Center.

Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see YouTube's privacy statement on their website and Google's privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU of PA's privacy statement, click here.

Greetings from Harrisburg, reproductive rights edition

2011-04-13T17:39:00.001-04:00

The health committees in both the state House and the state Senate were busy this week with abortion. Learn more in our latest edition of Greetings from Harrisburg, our video updates from the state capitol. And here's our press release in reaction to the week's activities.

Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see YouTube's privacy statement on their website and Google's privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU of PA's privacy statement, click here.

April 7 Rally for Women's Health

2011-04-08T12:59:00.000-04:00

Thanks to the 150 Pennsylvanians who made it to the Rally for Women’s Health in Washington DC yesterday!

Lobbying in Sen. Casey's office

Next week at the state capitol: The one about abortion

2011-04-08T07:35:00.006-04:00

Photo courtesy of the ACLU and yesterday's rally for women's health in Washington.

Well, here we go. The abortion wars aren't just for DC anymore. Next week reproductive rights take center stage at the state capitol.

On Monday, the House Health Committee will consider House Bill 574. This bill will require abortion clinics to follow the same regulations as ambulatory surgical facilities, which are clinics where patients can go for outpatient procedures. Why is that an issue? If abortion clinics had to follow these requirements, they would be forced to alter their buildings and their staffing in ways that would cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars. As just two of numerous examples, abortion clinics would have to increase the size of their operating rooms and would have to hire a full-time nurse. (Right now, clinics have a nurse on duty on days that they perform abortions but not on days that they are doing routine OB-GYN and family planning services.)

In reality, HB 574 would close most and maybe all of the freestanding abortion clinics in Pennsylvania. As it stands now, abortion services are only available in a small number of counties. One of our allies said recently that HB 574 would be the greatest rollback of reproductive healthcare in Pennsylvania since the Roe decision. And that's saying something since we are the state with the Abortion Control Act and the state of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey.

Our friends at Pennsylvania NOW have created a petition at change.org that will be sent to members of the House Health Committee.

On Tuesday, we get a break, but on Wednesday, it's right back at it. The Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee will hold a hearing on numerous pieces of legislation that have been introduced in the Senate in response to the indictment of Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia. The good news is that none of those bills move abortion clinics under the ASF standards like HB 574. The bad news is that at least two of the bills have some privacy issues, including exposing patient records- with names- to Department of Health inspectors, but we are hopeful that we can work through those issues with the Senate. The most important thing the Senate can do is reject the ASF provisions of HB 574, and so far, senators are doing that.

If you're interested in attending or watching on PCN (on cable or online), that hearing is at 2pm on Wednesday in Hearing Room 1 of the North Office Building.

In other news, we expect that the Senate Appropriations Committee will vote on SB 1, the taxpayer-funded private school vouchers bill. I know I said that last week, but this week I really mean it.

Also, there is some good legislation moving. On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider several bills that stem from the Luzerne County juvenile court scandal. SB 815 prohibits juveniles from waiving counsel, which was a huge problem in Luzerne. SB 817 prohibits the shackling of juveniles in court.

Finally, the Senate Judiciary Committee will also consider SB 850, which addresses sexting by minors. We have no position on this bill, and that's significant because the bill does not have the problems of House Bill 815, which we oppose. SB 850 creates a misdemeanor offense when one minor harms another via cyberbullying, including sexting. HB 815, on the other hand, has problems because it over-criminalizes kids and has First Amendment issues by criminalizing images that involve nudity (and not sex acts) and that are consensual. We're grateful that Senator Greenleaf has introduced and is moving SB 850 because it provides a counter to what the House has been trying to do for the last year.

Another action-packed week is shaping up at the state capitol.

Update from last week: SB 260 passed out of the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee. This bill removes the current requirement that patients receive pre-test counseling for HIV tests and allows doctors to require patients to opt-out of HIV testing, rather than opting in via written informed consent. Why it's a good idea to take information away from patients is beyond me.

SB 637 passed out of the Senate State Government. This bill requires state contractors and sub-contractors to use the federal E-Verify program, an online database program with more than 500 million records of personal information on us. We oppose.

HB 934, the voter ID bill, was debated in the House State Government Committee but not voted yet. We expect a committee vote soon on this awful bill.

We'll keep working on these bills, of course. But as I told an ally recently, what do we do with legislators who refuse to listen?

Greetings from Harrisburg, voting rights edition

2011-04-06T15:27:00.001-04:00

A bill to disfranchise voters via a photo ID requirement is on the move in the state House. HB 934 will get a committee vote soon. Learn more in this video and at aclupa.org/legislation.

Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see YouTube's privacy statement on their website and Google's privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU of PA's privacy statement, click here.

Next week at the state capitol

2011-03-31T08:12:00.002-04:00

Next week the Pennsylvania General Assembly returns to session after a three week break for budget hearings. Some people complain that we have a do-nothing legislature. And they say it like that's a bad thing.

Here's what's on tap. Our analysis, memos, etc. on these issues are available on our webpage for the current session, unless otherwise noted.

FLOOR VOTE! Death penalty expansion (HB 317): HB 317 adds two new aggravating circumstances for death penalty cases, bringing the total aggravating circumstances that allow a prosecutor to pursue a death sentence to an even 20. We oppose. I missed the memo that the death penalty has been a success. HB 317 is currently on the House calendar for third consideration.

Taxpayer-funded private school vouchers (SB 1): We expect this bill will be voted out of the Senate Appropriations Committee (with a $1 billion price tag?) sometime next week. It will get a vote on the Senate floor soon thereafter, although that may happen the week of Apil 11. We oppose.

E-Verify for state contractors (SB 637): The Senate State Government Committee is scheduled to consider this bill to mandate state contractors to use the federal E-Verify database program on Wednesday. Never mind that the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in the Hazleton case that local governments can't do that. We want Pennsylvanians to make donations to the ACLU, but we want those to be private donations, not out of the general fund after we kick the commonwealth's a** in court. We oppose.

We don't have any published documents on E-Verify for this session, but if you're interested in more info, check out our webpage from the 2009-10 session.

Elimination of pre-HIV-test counseling and informed consent (SB 260): The Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee will consider this bill on Wednesday. Under current law, a person getting an HIV test receives pre-test counseling and must sign a form, aka informed consent, to get the test. SB 260 wipes out the counseling requirement and requires patients to opt out of the test, rather than opting in. That's a violation! Again, no new info posted yet on this one, but our 09-10 session page has some commentary on why this is wrong. Also, national ACLU's HIV/AIDS project has a lot of info on why patient privacy in HIV testing must be protected.

Voter suppression (HB 934): The House State Government Committee will hold an informational meeting on Wednesday on HB 934, a bill to suppress votes by requiring photo ID at the polls. Members of the committee will debate the bill but not vote on it until a later meeting that is yet unscheduled. You guessed it....we oppose.

Did I forget anything? Oh, in what is sure to provide plenty of entertainment, representatives from the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) will meet with the House State Government Committee on Monday to discuss a resolution protesting TSA's extreme search tactics and a bill to create a new state crime of touching a person's genitals during a search.

Finally, Thursday is going to be action-packed for me. In the morning, I'll be testifying at the state capitol before the House Democratic Policy Committee on school vouchers. Then in the evening, it's off to Penn State for a panel discussion on sexting at the law school with Rep. Seth Grove (R-York County), Dauphin County District Attorney Ed Marsico, and Riya Shah, a staff attorney at Juvenile Law Center. It's at 6pm on Thursday in the auditorium of the Lewis Katz Law Building. If you're in the area, come by and say, "Hola!"

The war on the poor continues: Photo ID to vote

2011-03-24T11:01:00.003-04:00

The right to vote is an absolute cornerstone of our democracy. It is the most basic way in which the people have a voice in their government. So why are some state legislators trying to block access to the ballot box? Why are some legislators afraid of the voters?

Earlier this week, the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee held a public hearing on House Bills 934 and 647. HB 934 would require voters to show a government-issued, unexpired photo ID. Without it, they can't vote. HB 647 would require all registered voters to submit two photos of themselves, one of which would be kept on file at the county bureau of elections and the other which would be placed on their voter registration card. They would then have to present that card at the polls. Without it, no vote.

The written testimony submitted by the ACLU of PA is available here.

So why does the headline reference "the war on the poor"? If you didn't click and read the testimony, it's because a significant percentage of US citizens- 11 percent- do not have government-issued ID, and those without ID are disproportionately people who earn less than $35,000 annually, people over the age of 65, and people who are racial minorities. Sure, HB 934 allows free non-drivers ID cards for people without ID, but that provision is laced with the assumption that people without ID have a certain level of mobility and that they have or can acquire the necessary documents, e.g. a birth certificate, to get the free ID card.

Karen Buck from the Senior Law Center gave some great testimony that included examples of seniors whom she's worked with who would be adversely impacted. I cannot find the testimony anywhere online, but trust me, it was great.

Supporters of voter ID insist that they're trying to combat impersonation fraud. But when one member of the House State Government Committee pressed Michael Bekesha from Judicial Watch on how many people have been convicted of voter fraud in PA, Bekesha said that he was aware of one guilty plea for registration fraud, which is completely different from voter impersonation fraud. Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation referenced voter fraud cases in PA from the 1920s and the 1800s.

Von Spakovsky also referenced his work at the Department of Justice, when the Bush administration prosecuted some voter fraud cases. What he failed to mention was that eight US Attorneys were fired because they told the administration that there was no evidence of voter fraud.

The evidence of voter impersonation fraud is extremely weak. Scratch that, it's non-existent.

HB 934 will certainly get a committee vote, probably sometime in April. Beyond that, it's future is unclear, but I expect this will be one of our biggest fights at the state legislature in the 2011-12 session. Please contact your state representative now and ask him or her to protect the vote by opposing HB 934. You can use our "find your legislator" tool to learn who your rep is and to get his or her contact info.

First Amendment Roundup: Radicalization, Bigfoot, and Random Drug Tests

2011-03-11T11:30:00.000-05:00

A bit late getting this up today, forgive me. I was waylaid by hearings to determine how radicalized I am. Word on the street is 85%, but no one can tell me where that number came from. Here, in no particular order, are some of the First-Amendment-related cases you may have missed this week:

In case you somehow missed it, Representative Peter King's hearings on the "Radicalization of American Muslims" have been described by some as an opportunity for non-experts to spout unattributed racist and xenophobic superstitions about Muslims, by some as not doing enough to confront threats to America, and by one particular pundit as "just like" Robert Kennedy's 1962 mafia hearings. You can follow those links, or play a fun game where you guess which news outlet is taking which angle.
Tennessee, meanwhile, is considering a law that would make the practice of Sharia Law a felony punishable by up to fifteen years in prison.
A school bus driver in Oregon was fired for decorating his pickup truck with a Confederate flag, emblazoned prominently with the word "Redneck," and refusing to remove the flag at the bus yard. The driver and his attorneys argue that he has a First Amendment right to fly the flag.
A school district outside Providence, Rhode Island, has refused a request by the Rhode Island ACLU to remove a prayer mural, which is pretty specifically Christian, that has been on display at their high school for about 50 years. The Rhode Island ACLU has announced that they will sue.
Bigfoot is suing the state of New Hampshire. Performer Jonathan Doyle, who enjoys making amateur videos of himself dressed as Sasquatch (or is it "a sasquatch?") on Mount Monadnock, is suing after park rangers informed him that his particular form of mountain recreation would require applying for a $100 permit two weeks in advance and securing a $2 million insurance bond. Ah, New Hampshire: the Live Free or Die (or give us $100 and prove that you have insurance to dress as Bigfoot on our Mountain) State. The New Hampshire ACLU supports Doyle's lawsuit.
Here at home, the ACLU of Pennsylvania is suing the Panther Valley School District over their practice of random drug tests for students, a practice the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional way back in 2003. To be fair, when I went to high school our American history textbooks stopped before even the Vietnam War.
A Maryland lawmaker has proposed a bill, supported by the ACLU, that would protect employees from having to disclose their usernames or passwords for social networking sites like Facebook, and from threats of discipline should they refuse to do so.

I'll close by reminding you that this was also the (very depressing) week President Obama officially fully reversed his campaign position on Gitmo, reopening military tribunals and announcing that the United States may "need" to keep some individuals imprisoned indefinitely without trial. At this point habeas corpus has been lost so long he probably has Stockholm Syndrome. Poor guy almost made it to 800.

Greetings from Harrisburg, state budget edition

2011-03-09T11:48:00.005-05:00

This week we react to Governor Corbett's mention of overcrowded state prisons in his budget address and give a preview of an expected House vote on House Bill 317, expanding the death penalty to add two new aggravating circumstances.

As always, you can check out our latest statements on civil liberties-related legislation at our legislative webpage.

Update, 5:34pm: Here is what Governor Corbett said about prisons during his budget address:

Last month my administration cancelled a prison project in Fayette County because we don’t need it and we can’t afford it. We also can’t afford to ask counties in our state to subsist on a prison-based economy. We need industries that generate wealth, not sorrow...

In 1993, Pennsylvania had 24,000 men and women in its prisons. Today that number is over 50,000. This number speaks to a failure. Sometimes it’s a failure in our schools, or in our society, but ultimately in the personal character of the criminal.

We need to fund additional parole officers to help freed inmates make the transition from the prison yard to Main Street. We need to think smarter about how and when and how long to jail people.

Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see YouTube's privacy statement on their website and Google's privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU of PA's privacy statement, click here.

The war on the poor continues: Drug tests for public aid

2011-03-07T15:54:00.004-05:00

The war on the poor has been opened up on multiple fronts- in Washington, DC, and in state capitols around the country, including Harrisburg. Just at the ACLU, we've been addressing the U.S. House's proposal to cut family planning funding, including to our friends at Planned Parenthood, where many people with lower incomes go for a wide variety of services. And in Harrisburg, we're dealing with Senate Bill 9, mandating government-issued identification for public aid. (There's more on our opposition to this bill here.)

And those are just a few issues that fall within the ACLU's mission. Our friends at allied organizations are dealing with this full on assault in a broader way.

Today we had another reminder of how easy it is for the powerful to go after the vulnerable. Last week a bipartisan group of nine state senators introduced Senate Bill 719. This bill would implement random drug testing for people who receive cash assistance. At least two media outlets are exploring the issue since one of the senators issued a press release.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania's opposition to this bill can be summed up in three words- ineffective, expensive, and unconstitutional.

Ineffective. Statistics from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism have found that the rate of drug use among public aid recipients is no different from the general population. SB 719 singles out this particular population for extra scrutiny.

Expensive. Drug testing is expensive. It requires financial resources to give the tests, ensure confidentiality, and to run checks to guard against false positives from prescription drugs and other legal substances, like poppy seeds. Numerous states have cited costs as the reason for not starting such a program.

The federal government has a drug testing program for its employees. It found that it spends $77,000 for every one positive drug test because so few people test positive.

Unconstitutional. A drug test is a search, and under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, the government cannot conduct this type of broad-based search. The government must have reason to suspect a person is using illegal substances before mandating a drug test.

Michigan is the one state where a law like SB 719 passed. It was struck down by the court of appeals for the reasons cited above.

I'm not a fan of using violent language like "war" or "assault," but the types of initiatives that lawmakers are now pursuing suggest nothing less than an all-out war on the poor. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail in the PA Senate, and SB 719 will go nowhere fast.

Next week at the state capitol

2011-03-04T15:08:00.003-05:00

Next week will be a big week at the state capitol as Governor Corbett gives his first budget address, a proposal that his budget secretary has suggested would be a "day of reckoning."

But on the civil liberties front, it appears all should be relatively quiet, for a change. Several bills in which we have an interest have been re-referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, including Senate Bill 3, banning insurance coverage for abortion in the insurance exchanges created by healthcare reform, and Senate Bill 9, requiring government-issued ID for public aid. Bills expanding the controlled substances law are currently on the tabled calendar, and SB 1, the school vouchers bill, is expected to go to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Though the legislature is always full of surprises, no committees are scheduled to vote on civil liberties-related bills.

The biggest potential threat this week is House Bill 317, which adds two new aggravating circumstances for capital cases. It would bring the total number of aggravating circumstances, i.e. circumstances in a homicide that could lead to the death penalty, to 20. At a time when Illinois and Montana are considering repeal of the death penalty, followed on the heels of repeal by New York, New Jersey, and New Mexico, this bill actually expands the death penalty here in PA.

It's possible that HB 317 could get a vote next week. One would think it would go to the House Appropriations Committee before getting a floor vote since the death penalty has proven to be a very expensive government program. But one never knows at the capitol.

After next week, the legislature breaks for several weeks for budget hearings. (Yes, I'm already thinking about the days off I'll be taking this month.) Ah, but civil liberties will still be on the docket this month, as the House Democratic Policy Committee will hold several hearings on school vouchers and the House State Government Committee will hold hearings on ID to vote (on March 21) and on a resolution asking the federal government to address concerns raised over TSA airport searches (on March 30).

In between, I'll be getting some rest. It will really crank up in April.

First Amendment Roundup: School vouchers, religious expression in schools, and the right to protest

2011-03-04T08:00:00.000-05:00

It's been an interesting week, to say the least, what with the Obama Justice Department announcing they will not defend DOMA, and the ACLU joining with other groups to ask that California resume marrying gay couples and Walmart stop treating female employees so badly. Here's our run-down of some lesser-known first amendment stories you may have missed.

The biggest news, of course, is that the Supreme Court agreed with the ACLU's position and ruled 8-1 that the Constitution protects the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to public protest, even funerals. This has been a hotly contested position, naturally, but the ACLU has always defended the right of every person to free speech, even when we absolutely detest their message.
In a somewhat similar case, the 7th Circuit upheld a district court ruling that a teenager's "Be Happy, Not Gay" t-shirt, worn to school on the National Day of Silence in 2006, was protected by the First Amendment. Said the court, "People in our society do not have a legal right to prevent criticism of their beliefs or their way of life."
Closer to home, the Pennsylvania Senate Education Committee approved a School Vouchers Bill that would clearly violate the Federal and Pennsylvania Constitutions by funneling tax money into private and parochial schools, despite strong objections from the ACLU and other groups.
Students at Floyd County High School in West Virginia protested the removal of framed copies of the Ten Commandments from their school by displaying the Ten Commandments on their lockers, a terrific display of the difference between school endorsement of religion and student expression of religion that the ACLU was quick to defend.
Senator Al Franken calls Net Neutrality "the First Amendment issue of our time" in an interview with Ars Technica, and addresses his support of a bill that would censor web sites over concerns about piracy and copyright infringement.

Video: Kitzmiller v Dover is on the web!

2011-03-03T10:33:00.000-05:00

NOVA produced a pretty great episode a couple of years ago about our 2005 case against teaching intelligent design in science classes, Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District. It's almost two hours long and examines the case from several angles, and it's pretty entertaining - and it's actually a pretty good two-hour lesson on the basic tenets of both intelligent design and evolution theory, including the origins of the flagellum, the relevance of using a mousetrap as a tie clip, and the missing link between creation and intelligent design, "cdesign proponentsists."

The video is available on the web for free. The embedded version below comes from Google Video, which loads considerably faster than the one at PBS.org. While I'm at it, I'll also plug Devil in Dover, a book about the trial written by ACLU of Pennsylvania board member Lauri Lebo, who also appears in the NOVA episode.

Video update from the state capitol

2011-03-01T17:35:00.003-05:00

It was a rough day for civil liberties at the state capitol. The Senate Education Committee passed SB 1, creating taxpayer-funded school vouchers, and the House Judiciary Committee passed HB 317, creating two new aggravating circumstances for capital cases. Plus, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe has brought anti-immigrant legislation back to the fore with a press conference today.

Next week at the state capitol

2011-02-24T09:33:00.003-05:00

Two weeks ago, little did we know that the fun was only beginning at the state capitol.

The death penalty is a failure...so let's expand it. Huh?
On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee will vote on House Bill 317. This bill will add a new aggravating circumstance for capital cases. A person could get the death penalty if the homicide also involves a sex offense and the defendant was required to register under Megan's Law at the time. There are already 19 aggravating circumstances that could lead to the death penalty, and one of those is committing homicide in the course of committing another felony. But with HB 317, we want to be very, very, extra special sure that the person gets death.

The Everyone an ICE Agent Act of 2011
On Monday, the House Labor and Industry Committee will vote on House Bill 439. This bill would penalize any licensed employer in PA who hires a person without papers by taking the employer's license. Of course, the bill doesn't explain how the licensing board or commission is supposed to determine that the business did hire an undocumented immigrant. Does this bill only kick in if the employer is cited by the federal government? Does the licensing board have to conduct its own investigations and train its members as ICE agents?

Can't we just put them on double secret probation?

State Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' state constitution
It hasn't been posted yet, but the word is that the Senate Education Committee will vote on Tuesday on Senate Bill 1, the school vouchers bill. We contend- convincingly, of course- that SB 1 violates not one, not two, but three different provisions of the state constitution. Our legal analysis and our testimony on SB 1 are both available on our legislative webpage.

Meanwhile, back on the floor....
We don't expect floor votes this week on any bills on which the ACLU of PA has a position, but SB 3- prohibiting insurance coverage for abortion in the insurance exchanges- and SB 9- requiring government-issued ID for public aid- both continue to linger on the Senate calendar. Both bills are expected to detour to the Senate Appropriations Committee, but I also expect them to get a floor vote at some point soon.

You see what I have to deal with on a daily basis? Truth is, though, that I love it.

Guest Blogger Naeemah Johnson: Congratulate President Obama for standing up for equality in love

2011-02-23T17:44:00.000-05:00

Naeemah Johnson is a10th grade student at Mastery Charter School in Philadelphia. She is interning at the ACLU for the spring semester.

Today President Obama ordered the Department of Justice not to defend DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). This is truly a surprise. Some people say gay marriage should be unconstitutional, if so, love also must be unconstitutional. Who is the government to tell people what gender they should marry or should not marry? When two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with one another, they get married. So why can’t two females or two males who are in love with one another in get married in every state? To me, America is supposed to be the land of the free, people should be free to marry whomever they love. Our president understands this and is ready to change things. Many in the Congress won’t be happy with this. They don’t want Obama to have the power to make this decision, but he is the President. When Bush was in office he was selective in choosing which laws to enforce and got no trouble from the Congress. President Obama should be congratulated for standing up for equality in love. This is a change my generation can believe in.

Breaking News: President Obama instructs Justice Department not to defend DOMA

2011-02-23T12:57:00.001-05:00

According to a press release from the Department of Justice, President Obama has instructed the Department of Justice not to defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. From the release by Attorney General Eric Holder:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

This is huge news, and impacts the ACLU's case on behalf of Edie Windsor, whose marriage and inheritance rights were not recognized by the government after her wife and partner of 44 years passed away in 2009. There's a terrific video about Edie and her wife Thea and their case, which I highly recommend. It's embedded below.

This Week at the State Capitol

2011-02-14T08:00:00.001-05:00

This is a new feature I'm hoping to start doing on a regular basis, giving you a preview of what's going on at the state capitol. Although I'm doing this one on Monday, look for it late in the week before a session week, though I don't want to interfere with Chris's awesome Friday First Amendment Roundup.

This week promises to provide hours and hours of non-stop entertainment.

Talk Talk:
Monday, February 14, 12:30pm, Main Rotunda
Marriage Equality Press Conference
Marriage equality legislation, delivered just in time for Valentine's Day! Senator Daylin Leach has introduced Senate Bill 461 to allow lesbian and gay couples to join the institution of marriage and all of the benefits that go with it. Rep. Mark Cohen will introduce a civil unions on the House side. Polling indicates that either marriage or civil unions for same sex couples is supported by 65% of Pennsylvanians.

Tuesday, February 15, 9am, Hearing Room 1, North Office Building
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on cost-cutting measures in criminal justice
Despite the legislation passed last session, there is still plenty of work to be done. Pennsylvania still has a deep mandatory minimum sentencing scheme that needs rolled back, and programs that should help alleviate the prison population, like State Intermediate Punishment and the Recidivism Risk Reduction Initiative, have restrictions that make those programs ineffective. Meanwhile, the state is spending $800 million to build four new state prisons.

Wednesday, February 16, 9:15am, Hearing Room 1, North Office Building
Senate Education Committee hearing on Senate Bill 1
Welcome to the main event! SB 1 provides state-funded vouchers to low-income students to use at private, parochial, or other public schools. SB 1 violates three provisions of the state constitution that bar funding to sectarian schools, sectarian institutions, and schools that are not under the absolute control of the commonwealth. SB 1 also gives state funds to private and religious schools that can and do discriminate against kids for a variety of reasons, including disability, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, and an inability to speak English. Public schools, meanwhile, take everyone.

I don't have our testimony posted on our website yet but will have it up at our legislative page by Wednesday. Meanwhile, you can learn more about vouchers from our friends at the Pennsylvania School Boards Association and at the Pennsylvania State Education Association.

I often tweet when I'm at these events, so be sure to follow us @aclupa.

Rock the Vote?
Three bills on which the ACLU of PA has a position are currently on the Senate calendar. These bills could get a vote any day or might go to the Senate Appropriations Committee for fiscal considerations:

Senate Bill 3: We oppose. Bans insurance companies from offering abortion coverage within the insurance exchanges created by the federal government's healthcare reform. A woman who spends her own money on coverage couldn't get it within the exchange if SB 3 becomes law. We expect this bill will detour to the Senate Appropriations Committee before getting a vote sometime in the future. The Patriot News and the Pittsburgh Post Gazette have both editorialized on this bill.
Senate Bill 9: We oppose. Requires applicants for public aid to show government-issued ID or be denied. Supporters claim they're stopping people without papers from fraudulently getting aid but show no evidence that that's a problem. Meanwhile, academic analysis suggests as much as 11 percent of US citizens do not have government-issued ID. This bill should go to approps since multiple state agencies estimated in 2008 that SB 9 would cost the commonwealth $19 million to implement.
Senate Bill 42: We oppose. Shrinks the time frame in which persons who have committed sex offenses have to report certain changes, e.g. change in employment, to the state from 10 days to 2 days. It also treats a violation like a felony crime, not like a parole violation. Seriously, aren't we just setting these people up for failure?

Info about SB 3 and SB 9 is available at our legislative webpage.

Rock the committee vote
Since the war on drugs has been such a roaring success (/snark), the House Judiciary Committee will vote on three bills to expand the drug laws to add new substances- Spice et al, aka "synthetic marijuana"; Salvia Divinorum; and some chemical compounds I cannot pronounce.

So PA is building four new prisons at a cost of $800 million due to a bursting inmate population that has been caused in large part to the extreme sentencing laws for drug offenses we've implemented. And now we're going to add more substances to the list of what's illegal......If you continuously bang your head against a wall, at some point don't you realize that it won't make your headache go away?

Welcome to my world.....

Friday First Amendment Roundup: Privacy on Twitter and Amazon, Free Speech "Anarchy,"

2011-02-11T08:00:00.001-05:00

As the developing story in Egypt casts new light on the importance of free speech and privacy in the age of the Internet (and hopefully calls attention to threats to those freedoms here in the United States) as usual there are other, smaller dramas around the Country that you may have missed:

The ACLU and the Electronic Freedom Foundation have challenged the government's attempt to obtain the records of three Twitter users in conjunction with the FBI's WikiLeaks investigation. On that note, the ACLU has commended Twitter for defending the privacy of their users.
The ACLU also defended the privacy rights of Amazon.com customers in North Carolina, where state authorities were requesting information that could tie customers to specific purchases.
The Orange County, California district attorney's office has filed criminal charges against 11 UC Irvine students who protested a speech by the Israeli ambassador to the US last year. DA Tony Rackauckas's statement, in part: “We must decide whether we are a country of laws or a country of anarchy . . . We cannot tolerate a pre-planned violation of the law, even if the crime takes place on a school campus and even if the defendants are college students. In our democratic society, we cannot tolerate a deliberate, organized, repetitive and collective effort to significantly disrupt a speaker who hundreds assembled to hear.”
A speech by William Ayers at Georgia Southern University drew protesters from the Sons of Liberty, who were informed that they were not permitted to protest because they'd failed to register in advance.
The National Labor Relations Board (which, incidentally, has a Facebook page) reached settlement in a case defending the rights of workers to discuss working conditions on Facebook and other social networking sites.
A conflict is brewing in New Jersey over religious exemptions to state immunization requirements, as State Assemblyman Herb Conaway Jr. argues that the parents' word that immunization violates their religion should not be sufficient to grant an exemption.
The ACLU and several other organizations have launched the Develop For Privacy Challenge, a contest encouraging mobile phone application developers to address privacy concerns. Entries will be accepted at the contest web site until May 31.

We'll be back next Friday with another First Amendment Roundup. In the meantime, I hope you'll spend a little time celebrating the birthday of The Great Emancipator (and maybe the US's greatest LGBT President). If you have no other plans, it's also Evolution Weekend - so if your life's ambition is to finally reconcile religion with science, this is the weekend for you.

Then they came for immigrants and poor people....

2011-02-08T14:46:00.004-05:00

Two weeks ago, we told you that the first bill to get a committee vote in the state Senate was Senate Bill 3, to roll back women's access to abortion care. Today we learned that immigrants and poor people are next on the Senate's list.

The Senate State Government Committee today passed Senate Bill 9, requiring applicants for many public aid programs to show government-issued identification, with some exceptions. I wrote about this bill last week, so there's no need to rehash our arguments.

But there is a genuine level of disappointment here about the direction the Senate is heading when the first two bills to come out of committee restrict women's access to healthcare and restrict citizens' access to social safety net programs like unemployment compensation. Who and what is next? LGBT people? Prisoners? Voting rights? Apparently, the budget deficit, the economy, and government reform are nowhere on the radar screen, based on these first few weeks. If this keeps up, we're in for a bumpy session.

Update, 3:05pm: Factual error on my part. About an hour before the committee vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed seven bills, so SB 9 wasn't the second bill out of committee this session in the Senate. Still, the point is the same.

Let's do the time warp again!

2011-02-02T10:39:00.003-05:00

(I do realize that I've mixed my movie references. Just go with it.)

A friend of the ACLU of PA from an ally organization has said publicly that the state legislature is typically ten years behind the rest of the country. We can quibble over just how far behind the General Assembly is, but his point is well taken.

Early in the 2011-12 session, we've already had two reminders that our legislators are behind the times.

House Bill 41/Senate Bill 9: These pieces of legislation would require an applicant for public aid to show a government-issued identification before receiving that aid. Currently, most applicants show ID, but if they do not have it, the issuing department will work with them to get other records to establish ID.

The bill is framed as a way to stop people without papers from getting public aid, but there is no evidence that is actually happen. There is plenty of evidence, though, that a significant percentage of the citizen population does not have government-issued ID. According to the Brennan Center at NYU, 11 percent of US citizens do not have government-issued ID, and they are disproportionately the elderly, the working poor, and black adults. (pdf)

Colorado tried this in 2006 and lost money doing it. The state spent $2 million to implement the program and didn't save any money. Since then, some states have altered their verification process but without the ID requirement.

But here in PA the supporters of HB 41 and SB 9 continue to plow forward. Oh, and the Rendell administration estimated that these bills would cost $19 million to implement.

House Bill 308: At least with HB 41 and SB 9, what we've learned from other states is a relatively new phenomenon. When it comes to the death penalty, some of our state legislators are stuck in 1996.

House Bill 308 addresses capital cases in which the jury does not reach a unanimous verdict on the sentence. Under current law, if the jury is not unanimous, the judge implements a sentence of life without parole. This happened in a recent trial in Philadelphia in which the defendant was convicted of killing a police officer. Seven jurors wanted life and five wanted death.

HB 308 is the response to that trial. This bill would require a court to seat a new jury to hear another penalty phase argument. There is a mountain of evidence that shows that the death penalty is more costly than even life without parole. In the last three years, New Jersey and New Mexico repealed capital punishment, in part due to its large financial burden, and the Illinois legislature has passed a repeal bill, which awaits the governor's signature.

If HB 308 becomes law, it would only add to that huge payout that the commonwealth pays for the privilege (?) of maintaining the death penalty.

California has a law like this. It drags out the capital trial process, and it is expensive and painful to victims' families. The LA Times recently featured a story on the mother and grandmother of murder victims who is struggling to continue through the trial process and wants the prosecution to stop pursuing death. She just wants it to end.

They say adults have to hear something seven times before they learn it. Clearly, we advocates have our work cut out for us in bringing our legislators into this decade.

First they came for women's healthcare....

2011-01-26T08:13:00.000-05:00

So, Pennsylvania voter, you thought the 2010 election was about state government spending and a sluggish economy. Ha! Sucker.

No, apparently the top priority in our state Senate is not filling the approximately $4 billion budget hole for next year or wrestling with job growth or figuring out what to do about our looming crises in state pensions and corrections. Instead, the very first bill to be passed out of a Senate committee this session is on abortion. That is not a typo.

Despite the many challenges facing our commonwealth, the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee yesterday passed Senate Bill 3. This bill would ban insurance companies from offering abortion coverage in the health insurance exchanges created by the federal Affordable Care Act, aka healthcare reform, except in cases involving rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger. Even the rape and incest exceptions come with hurdles that could lead women to not have coverage.

(Pause for background: The exchanges provide a place where insurance companies can find more customers and customers can find lower rates because they are participating in a group, rather than as individuals. Essentially, it's a way for people without health insurance to shop for it. The exchanges were created by the federal law but will be administered by the states.)

Numerous senators and their staffers thought they were voting to prohibit coverage for taxpayer-funded abortions. The ACLU would oppose that, too, because we don't think poor women should be denied safe and critical care, but SB 3 goes much further. It completely bans insurance companies from covering abortion for customers in the exchanges, including those who pay for the coverage with their own money.

In fact, the Affordable Care Act already prohibits patients who get government subsidies from using the subsidies for abortion coverage. If a woman who participates in the exchange wants abortion coverage, she must get separate coverage and make a separate payment with her own money.

SB 3 wedges the government between a private insurance company and its customer. Talk about a government takeover of healthcare.

Looming over this debate is the recent indictment of Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia. Dr. Gosnell is accused of running an abortion clinic in which he allegedly killed live babies and one woman.

What our legislators don't get- and what we as civil libertarians have to push- is that there will be more Dr. Gosnells if the government continues to make it difficult for women to access safe abortion care. The Gosnell story gives us a look at a dark day in the future, if women cannot get the care they need. The back alley abortion will return.

We don't want to get to that day. SB 3 must be stopped.

Standing in the schoolhouse door

2011-01-14T15:51:00.003-05:00

Earlier this week, two state senators announced their intention to introduce legislation to offer state-funded school vouchers to low-income students. They framed their legislation as a civil rights issue, and one senator went so far as to suggest that opponents of the bill (like the ACLU of PA) are "like Gov. George Wallace standing in the doorway of a classroom to continue the segregation of the ‘60s."

It's true that access to a good education is a civil rights issue. Children in this country who aren't getting a quality education are almost always poor and often racial or ethnic minorities.

But the opponents of this school voucher plan have as much claim to the civil rights flag, if not more, than the proponents. The greatest amount of "choice" in "school choice" belongs to the private schools themselves. Private, religious schools can discriminate against kids and parents on the basis of race, ethnicity, disability, and gender.

In the late 1980s, a racial discrimination lawsuit was filed against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, claiming racial bias in the Philadelphia Catholic School system. A state court ruled that the school system of the archdiocese is exempt from the public accommodations provision of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, our non-discrimination law.

All private schools can discriminate against kids and families on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or familial or marital status because they are not protected classes in the PHRA.

Public schools, meanwhile, take everyone.

The ACLU of PA opposes this legislation because private schools discriminate and because it funnels state money to religious institutions. If the supporters of the bill want to have a discussion about civil rights, let's have that discussion.

Philadelphia: LGBT Town Hall and Happy Hour TONIGHT, 6:30 PM

2011-01-10T08:00:00.003-05:00

If you are in or around Philadelphia and you're a member of the LGBT community (and that includes straight supporters!) we invite you to join us tonight at 6:30 PM at the William Way Community Center, 1315 Spruce Street in Philadelphia.

Join the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Equality Pennsylvania and the Human Rights Campaign to discuss the challenges facing Pennsylvania's LGBT population now and in the future. The Town Hall will take place from 6:30 until 8:30, when we'll move to Tabu Lounge and Sports Bar , 200 South 12th Street, where we can drown our sorrows in drink specials.

This meeting is one of many that the ACLU, Equality PA and the HRC will be hosting around the state. If you can't make it to Philadelphia, we hope you will join us when we gather in your region!

Photo by Flickr user terry6082 Books, available under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License.

Friday First Amendment Roundup: Interrupting the Constitution, Shielding Against Whistleblowers, and the Soledad Cross

2011-01-07T08:00:00.002-05:00

Big week for civil liberties this week, with new lawmakers (and new House majorities) both in Harrisburg and in Washington. PA State Representative Darryl Metcalfe is starting hard out of the gate, with an anti-baby bill and an anti-gay Constitutional amendment in his eager little hands. As we always remind you, though, challenges to civil liberties come in all shapes and sizes. Here's a quick review of what you may have missed this week.

First and most exciting: in case you missed it, it's legal again to swear in Pennsylvania. Don't say we never did anything for you.
The House of Representatives opened their new session with its first-ever reading of the U.S. Constitution, which opened the opportunity for a birther to give us the first-ever heckling of the House as they read the Constitution.
Not to be outdone, protesters several times interrupted the press conference by Darryl Metcalfe and his colleagues announcing their multi-state anti-baby bill. Note the woman 46 seconds into the video urging the protesters to "respect [the speaker's] freedom of speech and sit down."
The ACLU welcomed the new congress with polite urging to uphold and protect the rights and values enshrined in the Constitution.
It's hard to say whether House members had a chance to read their nice letter from the ACLU before proposing the "Shield Bill," which would make it a crime to knowingly and willfully disseminate any information "concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States." Aimed at whistle-blowers and organizations like WikiLeaks, there are also very serious questions about its potential limitations on journalists. As an aside, the last time Congress passed a "Shield Bill," it was intended to shield journalists against retaliatory prosecution.
A Federal judge in Rhode Island ruled against the Rhode Island ACLU's argument that the city of Narragansett's "Orange Sticker Law," aimed at curtailing loud college parties by quite literally labeling houses police consider a problem, is unconstitutional.
The Ninth Circuit, meanwhile, ruled that the "Soledad Cross" is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion, and sent the case back to a federal court to determine whether the cross may be modified to pass muster, or must be removed altogether.

All Daryl, All the Time

2011-01-06T20:52:00.006-05:00

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe is keeping us busy this week. First there was his fringe idea of denying citizenship to babies born in the United States through state legislation, completely subverting the 14th Amendment.

Today we put out an action alert calling on our supporters to contact their state reps to ask them to not co-sponsor Metcalfe's state constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships.

Yesterday I did an email interview with a staffer from politicspa.com, and while the piece turned out to be a profile of Metcalfe with no real analysis of the issues at hand- and, thus, minus my comments- the beauty of using the internets is that we can self-publish. So here's the transcript of what I sent to politicspa.com. The initial questions are about Metcalfe's bill that mirrors Arizona's "papers please" law.

PoliticsPA: On what grounds does ACLU object to such a bill?
Andy: The Arizona law is unconstitutional, and a federal court affirmed that position. The law is pre-empted by federal law on immigration and will inevitably lead to racial profiling.

The states don't have the power to simply make up their own immigration laws. Certainly, state legislators have every right to be frustrated with the federal government, on any number of issues. But they don't just get to take over that area of law because they're frustrated. If state legislators were frustrated with how the federal government handles foreign policy, could they just take it over? Of course not. The same is true with immigration.

PoliticsPA: How would its enforcement affect immigrant communities in PA?
Andy: Passing this bill in PA would negatively impact relationships between immigrant communities and law enforcement. Immigrants- with or without papers- would be afraid to speak up as witnesses and as victims. The law enforcement community understands this, which is why so many of them spoke up when Metcalfe introduced the bill last session.

This bill would also scare away all immigrants and suggest that Pennsylvania is not a place where immigrants are welcome. Arizona's census numbers were below expectations. Why? No one can say for certain, but it is reasonable to speculate that SB 1070 played a role in driving people away. There was certainly plenty of anecdotal evidence of that. This impacts federal funding for the state and how many members of Congress we have.

Immigrants also make our communities safer because they commit crime at a lower rate than natural born citizens. Hazleton's crime rate dropped between 2000 and 2005 when it's population increased 50% due to an influx of immigrants, as we proved in court. El Paso, TX, is one of the safest big cities in the country. And Arizona's crime rate is the lowest its been in at least a decade and maybe more.

PoliticsPA: How would you respond to the claim that this bill would help PA's economy?
Andy: That claim has no basis in fact. Every legitimate study of the economic benefits of immigrants, with or without papers, shows that immigration is a net economic gain.

The anti-immigrant crowd hangs its hat on a study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center considers a hate group. The FAIR study produced only a gross number and did not consider the ways in which people without papers give back economically. In addition, more than 90% of the costs in the FAIR study were for education, and 75% of those students were natural born citizens. In other words, when anti-immigrant legislators cite the FAIR study, they are complaining about the costs of educating US citizens.

PoliticsPA: Rep. Matcalfe insists that the bill would not lead to racial profiling, citing provisions that law enforcement could only investigate someone's legal status as a secondary issue. Do you think it would lead to racial
profiling?
Andy: Yes. When the bill was introduced, Rep. Creighton told the Lancaster paper that an officer has to make a "subjective decision" when deciding whether or not to check a person's immigration status. That's exactly our point.

We have a case that illustrates this, even without this law in place. Our client was born in New Jersey and is of Puerto Rican descent. He was caught up in a drug sweep at his workplace. The drug charges were cleared quickly, but he was then held for three days for possible deportation. His driver's license and his Social Security card were in his wallet, in the government's possession, the entire time.

In western PA, there was a situation where a police officer asked a man for his papers while he sat on his front porch. It is inevitable that this bill, if enacted, will lead to racial profiling.

PoliticsPA: How does ACLU plan to combat this effort?
Andy: Well, we have a lot of work to do. We must convince community leaders, including the business community and law enforcement, to speak up, and we must organize at the grass roots level, too. I don't think legislators hear enough from their constituents who are with us, and we have to change that.

PoliticsPA: How about his idea to limit birthright citizenship?
Andy: Here's our press release on it. This bill is unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment protects the American values of fairness and equality. It ensures that a person's citizenship does not hinge on who his parents are or where they came from. It stops citizenship from becoming a political football and from being prone to the discriminatory whims of the day. Without it, we would create a permanent underclass. Metcalfe's bill would create a caste system in America.

If Metcalfe's immigration bills somehow became law, it would cost the commonwealth a lot of money. The laws would be challenged, and the commonwealth would almost certainly lose.

UPDATED: ACLU-PA Legislative Director Andy Hoover TONIGHT on CNN

2011-01-05T15:11:00.003-05:00

UPDATE: You can view the video online here.

Another quick plug: Andy will be discussing efforts by various state legislatures, including Pennsylvania's, to undermine the 14th Amendment. We're not sure about the exact time, but he will be on the "Situation Room" between 5:00 and 7:00 PM.

Metcalfe Off to a Quick Start with Unconstitutional Anti-Immigrant Bill

2011-01-05T15:05:00.000-05:00

In session less than a day, and the Pennsylvania Legislature is already making us work. State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe of Butler County is proposing a state law that would attempt to subvert the 14th Amendment, denying birth certificates to U.S. citizen babies born in the United States to immigrant parents.

Metcalfe announced his intentions today at a press conference with lawmakers from 40 other states, as a solution to America's fictional problem with "anchor babies," and the even-more-hysterical-and-fictional "terror babies."

The ACLU strongly opposes any such bill, and points out that no such state law will hold up in court against the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That won't stop Daryl Metcalfe and his companions from wasting taxpayer time and money on discrimination and fear-mongering.

Incidentally, you can catch Daryl Metcalfe, and ACLU of Pennsylvania Legislative Director Andy Hoover, discussing this issue on CNN's "Situation Room" tonight. We're not sure exactly what time, but it should be between 5:00 and 7:00 PM.

Will you watch the House read the Constitution?

2011-01-05T11:00:00.003-05:00

The House is scheduled to open their session tomorrow with a public reading of the U.S. Constitution. You can watch live on C-SPAN beginning at 10:00 AM. I'm sure it will be on around the office here - we're all looking forward to the looks of shock and astonishment when they get to that part about "establishment of religion."

This move by the new House majority certainly has stimulated debate. Speaking for myself, while I might disagree with the motives behind this particular reading, I don't see how starting a session by reading aloud the document Congress is sworn to uphold can be a bad thing.

One thing the Pope and I agree on (is it the only thing? I wonder if he thinks chocolate is delicious...) is that it's a lot easier to read a document out loud than to live by it. My guess is even after a public reading of the Constitution, America is still going to need the ACLU.

Then again, maybe Congress will finish reading, wipe away their patriotic tears, and throw open the doors of Guantanamo Bay. They draw up a repeal of DOMA on a napkin, and throw in repeals of USA PATRIOT and the Military Commissions Act while they're at it. As they're joined in singing the little-known second verse of the Star Spangled Banner, Habeas Corpus returns from his nine-year vacation and all is right in the United States.

Wouldn't that be a hell of day on C-SPAN.

So what are your thoughts on this public reading of the Constitution? Will you be watching?

State Police Agree to Stop Issuing Citations for Profanity

2011-01-04T15:24:00.001-05:00

If your New Year's Resolution was to stop swearing, you may want to reconsider.

Justice Scalia: Constitution doesn't protect women or gays from discrimination.

2011-01-04T14:57:00.002-05:00

I'm just glad there are eight other opinions as important as his.