News & Commentary

Last week, the Michigan Legislature passed a slew of dangerous bills that, if signed by the Governor, will have devastating impacts on our state's workers, women and families. This isn't the Michigan we voted for. Join thousands of other Michiganders as we rally in Lansing tomorrow, Tuesday the 11th to hold legislators accountable for their recent attacks. Headed to Lansing? Before you make the trip, make sure that you Know Your Protest Rights. At the ACLU of Michigan, we want everyone to be able to exercise their right to assemble, protest and be heard without interference. Read our Know Your Protest Rights guide to get a handle on important issues including:

They did it behind closed doors.  Yesterday, while the police locked the public out of the Capitol, the Michigan Legislature sneaked a set of extremist add-ons onto bills meant to reform Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance. Provisions tacked on to Senate Bill 1293 and 1294 contain extreme measures 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. Urge Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO Daniel Loepp to stand in opposition to these dangerous measures These provisions would force women to do the impossible — predict an unplanned pregnancy or a future medical crisis in order to purchase an expensive insurance rider in advance. Not only that, but shockingly insurers wouldn't even be required offer such riders: leaving many women without the support of their insurer in a time of need.  These last minute, politically-motivated additions would make it difficult, expensive  and sometimes impossible for women in our state to get the legal and medically necessary health care they need. Blue Cross Blue Shield is in the business of keeping Michigan healthy. Let's urge them to support a woman's ability to make health care decisions in a crisis. Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO Daniel Loepp could use his influence to recommend the Governor drop these extremist measures. Urge him to stand up for Michigan women and for a truly healthy Michigan by emailing him directly at dloepp@bcbsm.com Read more about the Capitol Lockout, including videos and blogs

To: Governor Rick Snyder P.O. Box 30013 Lansing, Michigan 48909

Politicians in Michigan are at it again – pushing a revised version of the sweeping anti-abortion bill that could threaten to close women’s health care centers. We beat back this bill before and now it is urgent these state lawmakers hear from us once more. They silenced female legislators from speaking out in opposition to this bill. They prevented over 90 women from testifying against legislation that will directly affect them. They are ramming this bill through at the last possible moment in this year’s legislative session, despite public outcry.  And worse, today legislators locked out members of the public, including the ACLU of Michigan’s own legislative director and others who wanted to advocate against the bill.

A lame-duck session of the Michigan Legislature occurs whenever one of the chambers meets after its legislative successors are elected, but before their terms begin. This is the last opportunity for representatives to get priority legislation passed, which usually makes for a hectic, short period of time where anything can happen. This year, the Michigan House of Representatives is in lame-duck (Nov. 7th-Dec 31st), with 28 new representatives on their way to Lansing for the new term. Stay tuned for a profile of each new member in a future Capitol Watchdog post. But for now, here's some lame-duck legislation that we're watching that you should know about:

In the dreams of law enforcement, police are able to check instantly DNA at a crime scene against a vast, complete catalog of individuals to solve crimes quickly and cleanly. The only problem is that kind of invasion of privacy would only happen in a science fiction movie, right? For several years, law enforcement and legislatures have toyed with the idea of collecting and permanently storing DNA samples from Americans who have not been convicted of any crime, despite concerns about government abuse, practicality and unconstitutionality, . After watching too many episodes of CSI, misguided Michigan lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 1345 and 1346, which would create a forensic DNA database that would store the DNA of anyone arrested (not convicted!) for a felony. This legislation is a bad, bad idea. We oppose this legislation for many reasons, starting with the fact it would legislate an invasion of innocent people's privacy and an intolerable violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Our Facebook newsfeeds are full of friends posting a cut-and-paste status update that claims to protect users' privacy and copyright from the company. It's awesome to see how many people care about their privacy rights. So does posting a notice on your Facebook page protect your privacy?  Short answer: Nope. Why not? When you created a user profile on Facebook, you agreed to the company's terms of service. By using the service, you've already agreed to allow Facebook to use your intellectual property (your updates, photos, and other stuff). Specifically, you still retain your copyright, but you grant Facebook a license to use and display that content until you delete it. Basically, it's like you signed a contract: you can't change that contract with a status update.  But I care about my privacy! What can I do? Four things: 

Whether and when to have children is about the most deeply personal and intimate decision a person can make. When we chose to start a family many years ago, my husband and I discussed our own health and energy and the state of our relationship and our finances. As people of faith and stewards of God’s creation, we talked about religious and moral considerations. While we spoke about these personal, intimate questions, I didn’t expect my boss to insist on weighing in on that discussion. But that’s what's happening to some employees. Some business owners are claiming that including birth control in their employees’ health insurance benefits in compliance with the Affordable Care Act would violate their religious freedom – even when their employees do not share their beliefs. This refusal has real consequences. After a series of miscarriages, my aunt and uncle made the difficult decision to use birth control despite the position of their church on the issue. After being cautioned about the potentially dire consequences of another pregnancy, my aunt recognized that contraception was essential to her continued health. I do not think most people would say her boss had a right to participate in that discussion. Contraception is a key part of women’s health care. Excluding it from health insurance coverage burdens women alone with its excessive cost, despite the positive impact family planning has on the health and financial security of both mother and family. As in my aunt’s case, contraception can protect a woman’s life. Sometimes it is prescribed for acne, migraines, or endometriosis – will it be excluded for those purposes, too? As a person of faith, it is offensive to me that some employers believe that their religious faith and beliefs deserve greater consideration than their employees. Why should one set of beliefs prevail over another? If employers are allowed to refuse contraception, what will be the limit of employer-driven exclusions? Some religious faiths refuse blood transfusions: would they be permitted to refuse to cover employees' lifesaving health needs? Could a religious teetotaler refuse to cover illnesses or injuries arising out of alcohol use? Employees don't give up their personal morals when taking a job. They are entitled to make their own health care decisions according to their own beliefs and values. That's the law: the Affordable Care Act says that comprehensive health insurance must include contraception. Making sure this law is followed doesn't violate employer's religious freedoms, it simply honors the religious beliefs and health decisions of individual employees and their families.

This election year, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission had its eye on much more than what's in your glass. Last week, the ACLU of Michigan challenged a blatantly unconstitutional rule that banned bar and restaurant owners from posting signs in favor of political candidates or parties.   What was the penalty for expressing their opinion in their own business? Anywhere from a $300 fine to the loss of their liquor license, which would practically shut their business down for good simply for displaying a sign. Martin and Keith own the Aut Bar, a popular restaurant and bar in Ann Arbor. For 17 years, they've built a business that is a positive and affirming gathering place for the gay community. People come to the bar not only to get a beer and a bite to eat, but also to have a place to network and share information on political decisions that impact their families. That's why they were shocked to find out their business could be endangered just because they wanted to post signs in favor of candidates in the upcoming November election. Just like Martin says, "it’s absurd that we are not able to display political candidate signs and must remain silent on these important issues simply because we serve alcohol." After all, regulations on one aspect of a business shouldn't be manipulated to bully and censor the political speech of their owners. Today, we're happy to announce that after hearing from us, the Liquor Control Commission has decided to respect free speech and stop enforcing this rule to allow business owners like Martin and Keith to speak up in the 2 weeks leading up to the election.  By Genevieve Scott, Cooperating Attorney