News & Commentary

In last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, tempers flared as anti-choice organizations voiced their support a controversial bill. Senator Kuipers’ Senate Bill 1283 would add language to the state’s Public Health Code, essentially asking medical providers to use their most technologically advanced ultrasound machines for abortion procedures. Specifically, there was expressed outrage that organizations not supporting the bill did not meet the supporting organizations’ verbal presence in live testimony. At the height of this apparent disappointment, one senator took the written testimony submitted by the ACLU of Michigan, crumbled it to the size of a baseball, and threw it across the table. As I sat there observing, I wondered, “was this an indication of frustration or was this merely a stunt to provoke those that did not wish to speak?” Sometimes silence can be so loud. The issue is not that organizations not supporting the bill simply did not speak up because they had nothing to say. The issue, rather, is why. In essence, both sides of abortion debates both have the same goal—saving lives. The heart of the matter, however, is lost in the details including bills such as Senator Kuipers’. What needs to be understood is that saving lives starts before a woman comes to the crossroads of considering terminating her pregnancy. Saving lives starts with access to resources and education. Saving lives really begins with reducing unplanned pregnancies. Putting resources into preventing unplanned pregnancies could not only reduce the number of abortions, but planned pregnancies can decrease infant mortality and teenage pregnancies. Comprehensive sex education plays a role by offering the best and most responsible information for teens to make informed decisions when it comes to sexual activity. Comprehensive sex education probably does not encourage teenage sex no more than abstinence-only education has discouraged teen sex. If teens do decide to engage in sexual activity, it would be in their best interest and society’s best interest to prevent unwanted pregnancies as well as a number of other uninvited consequences like sexually transmitted infections (STI). Resources should also be targeted towards state programs such as Plan First!, a Medicaid-waiver program, that helps increase access to low-income women for family planning services. These services include contraception, STI treatment, and other related medical care. This is especially important for women who are uninsured or under-insured due to unemployment or employers not offering medical benefits. Programs targeted towards preventing unplanned pregnancy also help reduce infant mortality. By ensuring that women have healthy planned pregnancies, the rates of infant mortality are greatly reduced. This is an especially crucial public health issue here in Michigan where rates of infant mortality have begun to rise in the metro Detroit area in the past few years. Bills such as Senator Kuipers’ do not truly address the serious issues of abortion and unplanned pregnancy in Michigan. Instead, statutory amendments like this just flare up continuing political debates focused on the wrong issues. Requiring abortion providers to use the “most technologically advanced ultrasound equipment available at that location” comes off as redundant and bypasses the crucial steps really needed to address abortion and unplanned pregnancies. This week, the bill is making another appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee for testimony. For the greater goal of reducing unplanned pregnancies, I hope our legislators really hear what is being said...from both supporters AND opposition.

Basic eighth-grade civics tells us legislators write the laws and police enforce them. But what happens when the police simply make up laws to punish people who question their authority or stand up for their rights? Enter Phil Letten, Ken Anderson, and two lawsuits the ACLU is filing on their behalf to protect citizens from the police state.

On May 17, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for juvenile offenders who haven’t committed homicide to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. This is very good news for children in our country. The 5-4 decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, recognized that such sentences violate the 8th amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but Michigan has to take the next step and appoint a special parole board to reevaluate the cases of juveniles who were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. If we’ve learned anything from this decision, it is that at the very least, children deserve a second chance. The Supreme Court decision goes a long way toward aligning legal opinion in the United States with the rest of the world. The Convention on the Rights of the Child explicitly prohibits life without parole for juveniles under eighteen. The Convention has been signed and ratified by every country with the exception of the United States and Somalia. But in my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough. Justice Kennedy acknowledges specifically, in writing the opinion, that as compared to adults, juveniles have a “lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility” and their characters are “not as well formed.” He writes that while a juvenile is not absolved of responsibility of his actions, his transgressions are “not as morally reprehensible as those of an adult.” And he goes on to point out that as a punishment, life without parole “the second most severe penalty permitted by law,” is especially harsh for a juvenile offender, who will on average serve more years and a greater percentage of his life in prison than an adult offender. Kennedy seems to be arguing that juveniles must be considered differently than adults. Following his line of this reasoning, juvenile life without parole should be unconstitutional on the face of it, even for homicide. Responding sarcastically to Justice Thomas’s dissent in the case, and addressing in general the injustice of harsh sentencing for youthful offenders and evolving standards, Justice Kennedy had this to say:

On my first day at work at ACLU, I was horrified to discover that right now there are over 300 children, or inmates who were children when they were incarcerated, serving life sentences in Michigan prisons with no chance of parole.Life without parole is a harsh penalty, justifiable when a serious crime has been committed, as justice meted out, as an effort at deterrence and as a way to keep law-abiding citizens safe.But each year in the United States, children as young as 13 years old are sentenced to life in prison with no hope of parole. This is hard to justify for any reason, especially in light of the fact that society has traditionally recognized that children deserve special protection because, distinct from adults, they are not yet fully formed and therefore vulnerable.In most nations it is accepted that children are different from adults and not accountable in the same way to strict standards of liability for criminal behavior.Scientific studies confirm that children’s brains are not yet fully developed, and that children are, in many cases, not able to reason like adults. The United States is the only nation that allows life without parole for juvenile offenders.In Michigan, the laws are particularly punishing and judges have very little discretion about sentencing.If you are 17 or older, you will automatically be tried as an adult.If you are 14, 15 or 16, the prosecutor, not the judge, determines whether your case will be heard in the juvenile justice system, where the focus is on teaching and rehabilitation-- because they are dealing with children-- or if you will be sent directly to the adult criminal system, where a life sentence without parole is mandatory for a first degree felony conviction, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of how old you are.And if you happen to be the 14-year-old along for the ride with the guy who pulled the trigger, you could get the same sentence.Under these rules, children as young as 14 are incomprehensibly expected to be able to understand the charges against them and navigate a complicated legal system, often with inadequate legal representation. And if they are convicted, they are housed with adult prisoners, with few services and very little protection.Just like that the door slams shut on these kids and they are condemned to living entire lives behind bars with no second chances, no appeal.The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. ACLU of Michigan is advocating in Lansing to change these cruel laws. Presently, there is a package of bills before the state House (HB594, HB4595, HB4596, HB4518).You can help by calling your legislators and asking them to support legislation that prohibits nonparolable life sentences for minors.By Katie Jacob, journalism student at Oakland University and will intern with the ACLU of Michigan throughout the summer.

For some parents, the first time their children begin dressing themselves is a stressful, embarrassing or frustrating experience. After all, how exactly do you explain to a kindergartner that a tutu, moccasins and a bathing suit just won't cut it in the midst of a Michigan winter?But for Stacy Fry, the day her 6-year-old daughter Ehlena shooed her out of her room so that she could dress herself was one of her proudest moments.Ehlena has cerebral palsy, and for years she has been unable to perform on her own many of the day-to-day functions that we take for granted.She could not open doors, turn on lights or even go to the bathroom without assistance. But things began to change in October when she was partnered with Wonder, a specially trained, certified mobility assistance dog. Since Wonder came along, Ehlena has continued to become more and more self-reliant.In order to cultivate this bond, it is critical that Ehlena and Wonder work together throughout the entire day. It was therefore very disruptive when Ehlena's school initially prohibited Wonder from joining her in the classroom.Over the past few months, the ACLU of Michigan advocated on behalf of the Frys to gain access to the classroom for Wonder. Last week, Wonder finally accompanied Ehlena to school. As Stacy explained, allowing Wonder and Ehlena to continue their work together uninterrupted will help her daughter "become more confident and independent."As ACLU attorneys, we often take cases that enable our clients to regain their voice and to be heard in a meaningful way. This is one of my favorite parts of my job.In this instance, however, I feel privileged to have participated in something that went even further. For 20 years, the Americans with Disabilities Act has held out the promise that individuals with disabilities are guaranteed the same rights and access as everyone else.As noted by the National Council on Disability in their 2007 report to the White House, the Act's goal of promoting full community participation can only be achieved by "eliminating the perception that people with disability are a wholly separate group that exists functionally, practically and conceptually apart from the rest of the population."Enabling students with disabilities to exercise their independence and remain in a general school setting is at the core of the ADA's purpose, as students like Ehlena teach all the other children in the classroom that individuals with disabilities can, and do, live lives that are completely integrated with the rest of the population.In this way, allowing Wonder to accompany Ehlena to school is not just about this moment. It is not just about this week, or even her entire kindergarten experience.Ehlena's relationship with Wonder, the autonomy that he allows her to gain, the power that he allows her to wield over her own life, will benefit her well beyond the school house doors.It is not an exaggeration to say that Ehlena's growing self-sufficiency will have a significant impact on the rest of her life. And so I take great pride in the fact that the ACLU could be a part of getting Wonder into the classroom. Even if it means that Ehlena's self-selected outfit may soon include a tutu.

The very first piece of legislation Barack Obama signed into law as President of the United States was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The law extended the statute of limitations for to an individual to file a lawsuit against employers based on unlawfull wage discrimination. This is relevant now because April 20, which is Equal Pay day, symbolizes how far into 2010 women must work to earn what men earned in 2009. This day reminds us of the pay inequalities that affected Lily Ledbetter and still affect women everywhere. Lily Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company for nearly two decades. Despite her dedication to the company, she never made as much money as the lowest paid male who did the same job. She sued for discrimination and her case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, only to have the Court rule that Lily Ledbetter had waited too long to file her complaint. President Obama recognized this as a travesty and signed into law the Lily Ledbetter Act. President Obama is to be commended for making this important act his first bill to sign into law, but this is only the beginning. The Michigan legislature should further expand on existing anti-discrimination laws to put an end to the wage inequality that not only exists in Michigan but everywhere in this country. Even with the Lily Ledbetter Act and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination in Michigan, women everywhere are paid significantly less than men. This reality hurts the women who are paid less and their families, many of whom rely on two incomes to make ends meet. President Obama made it easier for employees to challenge their employers for equal pay but we still have a lot of work to do before sex discrimination in wages and salary is eradicated. According to the U.S. Census Bureau approximately 84 percent of custodial parents are mothers, and only 49.8 percent work full time. That means they are cheated and their families are suffering because these women do not earn the full wage that their male counterparts earn. And in Michigan things are even worse. Around the country women are paid 78 cents to every dollar a man makes but in Michigan that number is only 71 cents. This makes Michigan 45th in the nation for wage gap and disparity between men and women. With so many families struggling in Michigan, this pay disparity could mean the difference between a family keeping or losing their house. And as time goes on the situation is getting worse. The numbers for new college grads also show disproportionate wages between men and women. According to American Association of University Women, women are paid 80 percent of their male counterparts’ wages one year after graduating college. And so even though we have the Lily Ledbetter Act, the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and other anti-discrimination laws there is still much more that needs to be done, especially in Michigan. Michigan can succeed where it has failed before and pass legislation that will help put an end to wage discrimination. The women who work just as hard and get paid less deserve it and so do their families.

Thirty years seems like a long time. That's about as long as I have worked at the ACLU of Michigan here in Detroit. During that time I have seen some of the most devastating examples of government violations of constitutional rights. Over the years, I've seen a pattern of indifference regarding people who can't afford to hire their own private lawyer. As a result, these “indigents” must depend upon Michigan’s broken public defense system. Whether Michigan’s Supreme Court decides to allow our lawsuit to move forward after hearing arguments today or not, it is still deeply satisfying to witness the success of this movement. I know that with this attention, one day all those accused of a crime in Michigan receive the same quality of justice, no matter how rich or poor. I hear firsthand evidence of the need to fix this broken system every day. Part of my job is speaking directly to people reaching out for the ACLU of Michigan's help. Over the years, I have heard complaints about on-the-spot court-appointed lawyers with huge caseloads and very little resources. These lawyers are unable to provide the legal representation necessary to help exonerate an innocent person, or work out a fair plea and sentence. For me, it was tremendously frustrating that I could only express our sadness to these victims of inadequate assistance of counsel. I would tell them that we are working to change the system, that we're in Lansing advocating for reforms every day. And now that day is here. Here at the ACLU of Michigan, we speak to those who suffer from poverty and are extremely vulnerable to being swept through the system. They are lost in a system that has broken its constitutional promise. There are innocent people who are serving prison sentences, and there are people who endure harsher penalties than is warranted, with no hope that their voice can be heard. We have even heard from poor people who have been denied court appointed counsel altogether by their county because it is believed that they are not “poor enough.” Hopefully, the Michigan Supreme Court will do the right thing and we can begin to reform and heal. Our court appointed lawyer system should be exemplary, we can’t afford anything less.

Constance McMillen successfully challenged the Itawamba County School District’s decision to cancel the senior prom because she planned to attend with her girlfriend.It should have ended there. The judge did not force the school district to reinstate the event because a private prom was being organized by parents. All seemed to be well, until last week, when Constance asked another student for the details about the alternate prom. She was told it was being held at a country club.When Constance and her date showed up at the country club Friday evening, only five other students were in attendance. Meanwhile, another prom for the other students was under way at a secret location.As ACLU staff, I have the inside scoop on civil liberties violations – atrocities from illegal body cavity searches by police on the streets of Detroit to the eviction of a woman terminally ill with brain cancer from her apartment for using a legally prescribed medicine. One could reasonably assume that I’ve developed a thick skin; that I can’t be shocked by human behavior.Well, I can. I am stunned by the actions of these parents in Mississippi and can’t decide which is worse – that a group of adults would organize a secret prom or that they would encourage their own children to lie. Most everyone I’ve told about this simply shakes their head and says, ‘Mississippi.’I remind them that this could have happened right here in Michigan, and they agree.It is a common misconception that the ACLU is a strictly litigious organization comprised entirely of lawyers. We aren’t. In fact, only one third of us here toiling away at the ACLU of Michigan hold a degree in law. The rest of us are out in the field, speaking to students on Constitution Day, building coalitions with like-minded organizations, and advocating on behalf of people just like Constance McMillen.It is the education and advocacy work of the ACLU of Michigan that prevents a situation like Constance McMillen’s from ever making it to court. Our on-the-ground work educating public institutions about offering domestic partner benefits in the wake of Prop 2 in 2004 ensured that thousands of residents and families across Michigan retained their health coverage. Our advocacy on behalf of Gershon Avery, who was arrested for collecting petition signatures at the Clinton Fall Festival, ultimately ensured that the free speech rights of the Village’s residents were protected. In the summer leading up to the 2008 elections, a coalition we created that included religious and community leaders ensured that thousands of voters across Michigan knew their rights when they went to the polls, despite efforts to mislead them and keep them from voting.These are just three examples. There are dozens of other success stories spanning the 50 years the ACLU of Michigan has been educating the public and advocating on behalf of individuals whose rights have been trampled. Without the support of people like you, our education and advocacy work wouldn’t be possible. Please consider making a gift today.