News & Commentary

&nbs

No matter how many lawyers we throw at some issues, it's the activism of our members and supporters that creates positive change both locally and nationwide. In this week's Rights Review, read more about how public outcry is driving change on ending school bullying, defying censorship in Plymouth-Canton, and fighting the discriminatory ban on domestic partnership benefits for some public employers.

Drug Testing for Benefits Recipients? How About Legislators? Drugs are everywhere in our society, from the streets to the penthouse. That’s why requiring mandatory drug testing in order to qualify for welfare benefits is simple discrimination. Back in 2000, we successfully fought against a mandatory drug testing program imposed by the state, arguing that it unconstitutionally victimized poor people (read more about the case). However, now the Department of Health Services is trying to revive applicant drug testing for those “suspected of drug use.” Perhaps we should drug test everyone who receives any government money, like our legislators? Since drug use is common across all socio-economic backgrounds, relying on negative stereotypes of the poor only vilifies those who need aid.  Our Executive Director Kary Moss wrote an op-ed in the Detroit Free Press, detailing why this practice is not only unconstitutional, but impractical (via the Free Press).

Last week, thousands of Michiganders spoke out against House Bills 4770 and 4771, urging Governor Snyder to do the right thing for Michigan families and veto this bad legislation. This morning, Governor Snyder asked the State House to provide a specific clarification that the colleges and universities are exempt from the ban on domestic partner benefits that House Bills 4770 and 4771. This attempt to dress up bad legislation is troubling, since this legislation would still take away health insurance from the families of public employees who work for the State of Michigan, city governments, county governments and public school districts.

These are real stories of real people that will be affected by HB 4770. Take action and tell Governor Snyder to VETO this legislation.Jolinda and Barbara have been together for 17 years. While Jolinda works for the City of Kalamazoo, Barbara works part-time so she can be home for their kids. Last year, Barbara was hit in the eye by a baseball and now takes medication to prevent possible blindness. If Governor Snyder signs HB 4770, Barbara will immediately lose the health insurance coverage that protects her sight.

Kary Moss, Executive DirectorThis week two interesting things happened – one in Michigan, one in Geneva.In the city of Troy, Mayor Janice Daniels was ‘outed’ as insensitive and worse when she called out New York for allowing “queers” to marry.Yesterday in Geneva, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a historic pronouncement that that the Department of State will pursue a global human rights agenda inclusive of all sexual orientations and gender identities.What a contrast. In the one case, we have tea party mayor sorely out of touch with how her words echo and reverberate in a community and state, going well beyond what may be her own personal values.In the other case, we have a national leader whose words recognize that human progress depends on our ability to respect all sexual orientations and gender identities.While the culture war underway should not be ignored, for those millions of people throughout the world who face real threats ranging from employment discrimination, threats to personal safety and who suffer the costs of a legal system that subjects them to second class status because they cannot marry, I say take heart.Slowly but surely tolerance will win. Polls of younger voters show this is a non-issue and just a matter of time before acceptance wins the day.In the meantime, today you can do something about it. The Michigan Legislature has passed a bill that would prohibit public employers from providing domestic partnership benefits.Let him know that our state will not be held hostage to small-mindedness but, rather, that we aspire to embrace global human rights values that recognize the dignity in every human being.Learn more about issues you care about and take action: become a member, subscribe to our email action alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. 

Luis L. is a lawful permanent resident from the Dominican Republic. As a young child, he moved with his family to Florida, where I interviewed him for a report by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch. Luis developed schizophrenia as a teenager, prompting trouble with the law. But fortunately, the judge presiding over Luis's criminal case recognized that Luis' behavior was connected to his disability and sent him to get mental health treatment. After a few years at an assisted living home, Luis was doing well — he was taking medication that alleviated the frightening symptoms of schizophrenia and was taking control of his life. But when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) decided to detain him based on his old conviction, Luis was packed off to a facility hours away and denied the medication he had been taking, prompting a terrifying downward cycle that lasted months. He told us that the only thing more petrifying than deportation was the experience of being without his medication. "I was scared for my life," he said. Thousands of immigrant detainees like Luis are housed in remote detention facilities around the country, far from professional medical services and the contact and care of their families. For detainees with mental disabilities, this isolation has two further sinister consequences: first, detention can be particularly traumatic for individuals with mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia or post-traumatic stress disorder. In some cases, the agonizing experience of being trapped in detention provokes psychological breakdowns. And second, detainees with disabilities are sometimes lost and forgotten — for years — in detention. Detention is a rights-stripping environment; and for many detainees with disabilities the problems they experience in detention affect their immigration hearings. When detainees' health deteriorates in the absence of appropriate medical care, detainees are often unable to participate in their immigration proceedings. Like Luis, they may be unable to provide even basic information about themselves in court. And because there is no clear limit for how long a person can be detained during their proceedings, detainees can be trapped in detention for years when immigration judges delay or reschedule hearings, waiting or hoping for something to happen that will help the detainee to take part in the hearing. For Guillermo Gomez-Sanchez and Jose Franco-Gonzales, a judge's decision to administratively close each of their proceedings—effectively putting the hearings "on hold"—rather than safeguarding their rights, triggered a nightmarish journey that included years of detention. Mr. Franco-Gonzales was in fact lost and forgotten by ICE during his four and a half years in detention while Mr. Gomez-Sanchez (detained for five years) was transferred far from his family in California to a hospital in South Carolina. Both were released in March 2010 after the ACLU of Southern California filed lawsuits on their behalf. In November 2010, the ACLU and a coalition of public interest organizations filed a class action lawsuit to ensure that detainees with mental disabilities are given bond hearings and the opportunity to ask for release. The lawsuit also argues for legal representation at bond hearings and throughout immigration proceedings so that detainees with mental disabilities have a fair and real opportunity to show they pose no flight risk or threat to the community and can be released from detention. Without these safeguards, detainees with disabilities—who include U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents—are stuck in detention with no end in sight, unable to move forward in their cases. But as one immigration judge observed, fixing the insufficient and unfair procedural rules isn't going to be enough: "Trying to fix the regulations misses the point; these people should not be in removal proceedings in the first place." This article was originally published on the ACLU Blog of Rights.

With Grand Rapids' ArtPrize in full swing, the ACLU of Michigan Western Branch has enjoyed an overwhelmingly positive response to our first ArtPrize exhibit. The quality of the art and the power of the messages the works carry have amazed all the visitors who have come to Fountain Street Church. Our exhibit Art and Civil Liberties focuses on the myriad of ways that art has been linked to the defense of civil liberties, from illustrating controversial social issues to encouraging revolutionary change. Judges Deb Mankoff and ACLU of Michigan Legislative Director Shelli Weisberg chose two particularly gripping pieces to receive $1,000 Best-in-Show awards. Chicago-area artist Dominic Sansone's piece Brand New God took the top ACLU of Michigan prize, and its power routinely garners gasps from visitors. The installation fills the church's chapel with rows of small human figures of all colors worshipping a central idol: a gilded AK-47 rifle. The Fountain Street Chuch's Social Action Committee's top prize was awarded to Michigan artist Brad VanderMoere's We's Goin' To Washington! The oil painting decrys the disconnect between citizens and their representatives. Both pieces are among the 25 highest vote-getters in the Hillside Neighborhood in the ArtPrize area. One of the largest pieces in the show is a triptych by Sandra Hansen. Modeled after a Medieval alter-piece, the eight-foot tall painting memorializes one of the most famous victims of racism, the young Emmett Till. Other featured artworks deal with homophobia, violence against women, mental illness, and several pay tribute to civil liberties heroes, including Nelson Mandela of South Africa and artist Ai Weh Weh of China. To celebrate the opening of the exhibit, we held a panel discussion focused on the role of artists in drawing attention to social issues. Some audience members felt that video and electronic media are superior at spreading social issue commentary widely. Others felt that the immediacy and strength of direct contact with an artist's work can be much more influential for individuals, even if that experience is limited to a few people. The discussion was a great introduction to the experience of viewing ArtPrize works both at the church and elsewhere in the city. ArtPrize is already half over: I urge everyone to see as much of the art as possible, but give priority to the show put on by the ACLU and Fountain Street Church, at 24 Fountain NE, just east of Division Avenue.

The Michigan Legislature is once again putting political gamesmanship ahead of women’s health. Today, the House and Senate will vote on bills prohibiting a rarely used, yet medically necessary abortion method. As if that's not bad enough, the bills are useless since the procedure is already banned by federal law. Take Action: Tell your elected officials that this ban is a waste of time. HB 4109 and SB 160 are the legislature’s fifth attempt to ban an abortion method already prohibited under federal law. Not only are these bills unnecessary and redundant, they don't provide an exception to protect a woman’s health. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an identical federal abortion ban in 2007 that did not include a health exception—overturning thirty plus years of precedent that required abortion restrictions to include health exceptions. This attempt to play politics with women's health is out of step with mainstream values and runs counter to the strong message from voters to focus on jobs and the economy. Instead of focusing on divisive political issues, the legislature should work together to promote common-sense polices that support a woman's ability to make informed and responsible health care decisions. Make your voice heard: Tell your legislator to protect women's health. By Shelli Weisberg, Legislative Director