News & Commentary

Another blog. That’s just what the world has been crying out for, right? Yet another blog. Especially one that doesn’t yet have a name, and is still searching for the right voice. A permanent home with a web page of its own also remains in the future. And actual, substantial content … that too is yet to come. Other than that, though, everything is good to go. So, let's begin this experiment in nonprofit journalism by turning to the traditional five Ws -- who, what, when, where, why -- and scrambling their order, going straight to the last one first.

Another blog. That’s just what the world has been crying out for, right? Yet another blog. Especially one that doesn’t yet have a name, and is still searching for the right voice. A permanent home with a web page of its own also remains in the future. And actual, substantial content … that too is yet to come. Other than that, though, everything is good to go. So, let's begin this experiment in nonprofit journalism by turning to the traditional five Ws — who, what, when, where, why — and scrambling their order, going straight to the last one first.

Asia Myers is expecting a baby girl in less than a month, but has a stack of bills courtesy of an employer that forced her to make an unthinkable choice between a healthy pregnancy and her paycheck. Early in her pregnancy, Asia suffered from complications serious enough for her doctor to put her on bed rest. After she improved, her doctor cleared her to return to work as a nursing assistant at a long-term care facility, as long as she did not do any lifting. Despite the fact that Asia's employer routinely grants this kind of accommodation to workers with similar lifting restrictions, her employer refused to give her an accommodation to avoid jeopardizing the health of her pregnancy. Instead, her employer told her that she could either take unpaid leave or continue working without considerations for the health of her pregnancy. "I was without work for more than 30 days, unable to make ends meet. I felt like I had to choose between my health and my finances," Asia told us. "My employer seemed to care nothing about my safety or the safety of my child. It's not right!"

Yesterday, the Michigan Legislature voted and passed an initiative that effectively bans any health care policy issued in Michigan from providing abortion coverage, making comprehensive health care near impossible to obtain for a woman in our state. The initiative, approved 62-47 by the House and 27-11 in the Senate will become law in March without the signature of Gov. Rick Snyder, who vetoed similar legislation a year ago. Did your representative represent you? Check our list of legislators that voted to take health coverage away from women across our state. This dangerous policy takes insurance coverage away from victims of rape and incest and puts the lives of women facing unexpected pregnancy complications at risk. It is beyond us how anyone could support this initiative after the personal stories that were told in Lansing. Brave female legislators shared highly personal and painful stories in a plea to their colleagues to reject the initiative and allow voters across the state to decide to issue. Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer, in an emotional speech, disclosed that she was raped 20 years ago: “If this were law then and I had become pregnant, I would not be able to have coverage because of this. How extreme does this measure need to be? I’m not the only woman in our state that has faced that horrible circumstance…. I think you need to see the face of the women you are impacting by this vote today.”

Today, the Michigan Legislature could vote on a proposal that would ban any health care policy issued in Michigan from providing abortion coverage, making comprehensive health care near impossible to obtain for a woman in our state. We need every voice to call your legislator and urge them to do the right thing and let this proposal go to the ballot in 2014.  Find your legislators' phone numbers: House of Representatives | Senate Tell your legislator that this dangerous policy would take insurance coverage away from victims of rape and incest as well as put the lives of women facing unexpected pregnancy complications at risk.  Not only does this proposal endanger women's lives, but voters overwhelmingly oppose it. Polls suggest that opposition is over 60% in both strong Republican and Democratic districts. Your voice truly matters in this fight. Voters deserve to make choices about our healthcare, not special interests.

This week, the Michigan Legislature will have the opportunity to vote on a proposal that will endanger women’s access to comprehensive healthcare throughout the state. As physicians and members of the Michigan Section of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), we know how essential having access to safe, comprehensive healthcare is to the lives of Michigan women and their families. We strongly oppose any proposal that would prevent insurance companies from covering medically-necessary abortion services that save women’s lives. This is not merely a political issue: pregnancy-related complications are within the top ten causes of death for women under 35. It is extremely disturbing that excluding coverage for one of the leading causes of death in the country is even being considered in our state. That’s why the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion supporting the availability of comprehensive reproductive health services for all women, including:

When you show up at a hospital in need of medical aid, you expect that the doctors and nurses will figure out what's wrong, explain to you the options for treating it, and give you the best medical care possible. That's what Tamesha Means thought, until she showed up at Mercy Health hospital. Tamesha was only 18 weeks pregnant when her water broke prematurely. She rushed to Mercy Health—the only hospital within half an hour of where she lived. The hospital did not tell her then that she had little chance of a successful pregnancy, that she was at risk if she tried to continue the pregnancy, and that the safest course of care in her case was to end it. They didn't tell her these things: the hospital simply sent her home. She came back the next day, bleeding and in pain, and again was turned away. Again, she was not told of the risks of trying to continue the pregnancy, or what her treatment options were. Tamesha returned yet a third time—by now suffering a significant infection. The hospital was prepared to send her away once more, when she started to deliver. Tamesha's baby died within hours of being born—at 18 weeks, it never had a chance. How could something like this happen? Because Mercy Health is Catholic-sponsored, it is required to adhere to the "Ethical and Religious Directives," a set of rules created by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to govern the provision of medical care at Catholic-run hospitals. At hospitals like Mercy Health, these religious directives are put above medical standards of care.

As early as next week, the Michigan Legislature could vote on a proposal that would ban Michigan health care policies from covering abortion care, making comprehensive health care near impossible to obtain for a woman in our state. Unlike past attacks on reproductive rights, this one isn’t even pretending to care about “protecting women’s health.” Instead, this proposal blatantly singles out women and denies them coverage for life-saving healthcare services, with no exception for rape, incest or the life and health of a mother. Defend Women's Health Care in Michigan  These provisions are an unwarranted government intrusion into a private marketplace and would force women to do the impossible — predict an unplanned pregnancy, rape or a future medical crisis in order to purchase expensive additional insurance in advance. Michigan doesn’t want this legislation. For years, interest groups that are out of touch with the majority of Michiganders have been fighting to push this policy through our democratic system. Former Governor Engler rejected similar legislation as being wrong for Michigan, and Governor Snyder vetoed almost identical bills just last year. Since they have failed to convince voters, our legislature, and our governor, this small group of activists is now circumventing the traditional legislative process in order to push their agenda through with approval from only three percent of Michigan voters. There is still hope: Our legislators have the option to do the right thing by not taking a vote and letting this proposal go to the ballot in 2014 to let voters decide what is best for our state. Stand up for what's right: ask the Legislature to sit this one out and let Michigan voters decide.

What do you know about Detroit candidates and their positions on civil rights and civil liberties issues? At the ACLU of Michigan, we are passionate about a vast array of issues, including free speech, women’s rights, reproductive freedom, racial justice, LGBT rights, voting rights, immigrants’ rights, and criminal justice reform. The ACLU of Michigan Metro Detroit Branch put together a candidate survey because we want our members and supporters to be well informed about the candidates’ positions on civil rights and civil liberties issues before they vote in the upcoming mayoral and city council races. Unfortunately, neither of the mayoral candidates and only five of the council candidates responded. We appreciate those candidates that did take time to answer the series of questions. The ACLU link below allows you to view the survey answers for those candidates who responded. In addition, we prepared a commentary on the ACLU perspective on the issues in the questionnaire. We suggest that you contact candidates, before or after the election, to let them know how you feel about these important issues. Detroit Mayor Michael E. Duggan Did Not Respond Benny Napoleon Did Not Respond Detroit City Council District 1 Wanda Jan Hill Did Not Respond James Tate Did Not Respond District 2 Richard Bowers Jr.  George Cushingberry Jr. Did Not Respond District 3 Francine Adams Did Not Respond Scott Benson Did Not Respond District 4 Bettie Cook-Scott Andre Spivey Did Not Respond District 5 Adam Hollier Mary Sheffield District 6 Raquel Castañeda-López  William I. Robinson Did Not Respond District 7 John Bennett Did Not Respond Gabriel Leland Did Not Respond At-Large David Bullock Did Not Respond Saunteel Jenkins Did Not Respond Brenda Jones Did Not Respond Roy McCalister Did Not Respond Detroit City Council Candidates Contact Information Detroit Mayoral Candidates Contact Information 2013 Election—ACLU of Michigan Candidate Questionnaire 1. The ACLU released a new report finding blacks were arrested for marijuana possession at 3.3 times the rate of whites in Michigan in 2010, despite comparable marijuana usage rates. Do you support removing all civil and criminal penalties for marijuana use and possession? Yes. Across the country, the ACLU is calling for states to legalize marijuana. If that is not possible, the ACLU suggests removing all civil and criminal penalties for its use and possession; decriminalizing low-level marijuana possession by replacing all criminal penalties for use and possession of small amounts of marijuana with a maximum civil penalty of a small fine.  2. Do you support amending Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to add protections to LGBT citizens in employment and public accommodation? In Michigan you can be fired if someone thinks you’re gay or transgender. The ACLU of Michigan is mobilizing to stop this injustice, teaming up with a coalition of civil rights organizations and everyday Michiganders to launch the Don't Change Yourself: Change the Law campaign.  3. Do you oppose implementation in Detroit of a stop and frisk training program that may be similar to the recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in New York? The ACLU of Michigan has raised serous questions about the possible implementation of a New York City style stop and frisk program in a letter from Mark P. Fancher, Racial Justice Project staff attorney, to James E. Craig, Chief of Detroit Police. 4. Do you support public employers and universities using race-conscious policies that take into account race as one of many factors in enrollment and employment in order to attract a diverse work force or student body? The ACLU of Michigan recently argued in the United States Supreme Court opposing Michigan’s Proposal 2 as unconstitutional because it bars students from lobbying universities to consider race as but one of nearly 100 factors in admissions. The ACLU supports the continued narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further the educational benefits that come from a diverse student body. 5. The ACLU of Michigan has opposed private employers who have challenged on religious grounds the new requirement under the Affordable Care Act (or “Obamacare”) that all employee health insurance plans include birth control prescription coverage. Do you agree that just as employers cannot rely on religion to discriminate against racial and religious minorities, they cannot rely on religion to ignore civil rights laws protecting women? The ACLU of Michigan works to ensure that women are not denied information and the health care they need because of the religious views of their health care providers.  6. States and localities have not been permitted to enact, enforce or implement federal immigration law. Do you oppose proposals to deputize local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law? The ACLU of Michigan has opposed local police practices that are discriminatory and encourage the harassment of innocent people perceived to be immigrants.  7. The ACLU of Michigan has challenged as unconstitutional a state law that would have barred many public entities from providing health insurance to the domestic partners of their employees? Do you support providing health benefits to domestic partners of gay and lesbian public employees? The ACLU of Michigan has obtained a temporary injunction in federal court against a state law that would have barred many public entities from providing health insurance to the domestic partners of their employees, arguing it to be unconstitutional. 8. Do you support the right of police, fire and other public employees to speak out publicly on matters of public concern? The ACLU has long supported the right of public employees to speak out on matters of public concern. As an example, in a recent letter, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan urged the Ironwood Department of Public Safety to uphold the free speech rights of a firefighter who was threatened with discipline and termination for writing letters to the editor that were critical of city government. 9. The ACLU of Michigan sent a letter to the Detroit Police Department and filed a complaint with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) demanding an end to the Detroit police’s alleged illegal and abusive tactics toward homeless individuals in the city. Do you oppose the practice of “taking homeless people for a ride” – removing them from popular areas such as Greektown and driving them to remote areas of Detroit or the suburbs? It’s illegal and unconstitutional for police to arrest or harass people who have committed no crime, simply because they appear to be homeless. A yearlong ACLU investigation uncovered the disturbing practice of officers approaching individuals who appear to be homeless in the Greektown area, forcing them into police vans, and deserting them miles away. 10. The Michigan State Police and other police agencies currently use electronic devices that can extract the contents of cell phones within moments. Do you support placing restrictions on the use of the devices? The ACLU of Michigan has expressed concern about the possible constitutional implications of using portable devices that have the potential to quickly download data from cell phones without the owner of the cellphone knowing to conduct suspicionless searches without consent or a search warrant. 11. Do you support requiring private organizations and security firms that manage the Detroit RiverWalk and other public parks to be held to the same constitutional standards that government agencies must adhere to in upholding the free speech rights of Detroiters and visitors to leaflet or demonstrate? The ACLU of Michigan regards it as well-established that a private entity is bound to honor the constitutional rights of individuals in the course of carrying out a function that is traditionally performed by the government. 12. The City of Detroit’s longstanding practice of allowing police officers to seize vehicles simply because they were driven to a location where unlawful conduct occurred is currently being challenged in federal court. Do you support changes to forfeiture policies and practices in the City? The ACLU of Michigan has argued in federal court that the 2008 Detroit police raid of the Contemporary Art Institute of Detroit in which 130 innocent CAID patrons were detained and their cars impounded was unconstitutional. Police had no evidence that the patrons had broken the law and no illegal drugs or weapons were uncovered during the raid.