News & Commentary

Happy Anniversary Birth Control! Not the anniversary of the invention of the “pill” or the “IUD”, but of an individual’s right to actually obtain and use contraceptives. It seems incredible, but that right was only fully granted in 1972, when the US Supreme Court in Eisenstadt v. Baird decided that it was unconstitutional to deny contraceptives to unmarried persons. It was only a few years before Griswold v. Connecticut, that the Supreme Court declared that forbidding the use of contraceptives violates the right to marital privacy, a decision that was determined to only apply to married persons. So, 37 years ago the US Supreme Court declared that woman should be fully in charge of their reproductive future. So why does it seem like we’ve been backsliding? Today in Michigan, pharmacists can choose to deny to fill a prescription for birth control based on their own personal moral convictions. And, the Michigan legislature continues their attempts to pass a law enshrining that practice as a right in statute. Michigan employers who offer an insurance plan which includes prescription coverage can choose to remove contraceptives from the prescription plan, a choice not available for any other category of covered drugs. Even though the EEOC has declared this practice a violation of Title VII and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights declared it sex discrimination under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, the practice is not against the law in Michigan. But things look hopeful as this important anniversary rolls around. The Michigan House of Representatives is introducing a comprehensive package of legislation that will require a pharmacy fill a prescription as written, leaving it up to the pharmacy to make arrangements to honor an individual pharmacists religious convictions without affecting the customer. The legislation will require “contraceptive equity” – a requirement that contraceptives cannot be excluded from an employer’s otherwise comprehensive prescription coverage plan. Other bills in the package will require that hospital emergency rooms offer emergency contraception to rape survivors and that public school sex education courses must include medically accurate information. These common sense measures are long overdue. Encourage your elected officials in Michigan to help restore a woman’s right and ability to control her reproductive future by supporting this package of legislation.

Never in all my days as a devout observer of the holiday did I think I would spend St. Patrick’s Day inside a sweaty municipal hall listening to the finer points of Ferndale’s zoning laws.

It's not every day you find that the American Jewish Congress, the National Association of Evangelicals, the A.M.E. Baptist Church, Michigan law faculty, and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression all agree with one another. But this broad coalition of religious groups, law professors, and free speech advocates have come together to support a fundamental American principle: a preacher should not be sent to prison for writing a newspaper editorial that uses Biblical language to criticize a judge.

Next week is an important one for women. Just days before this year’s International Women’s Day on March 8, human rights advocates are gathering at the United Nations in New York to strategize on working with the Obama administration to take women’s rights to the next level. It is not a moment too soon for these conversations. Twice now the ACLU of Michigan has successfully advocated for battered women who faced eviction from their apartment complexes because they could not control their “guests.” All too often, landlords revictimize domestic violence survivors by falling on the stereotype that survivors can control the behavior of their batterers but choose not to do so. In one settlement on behalf of a Detroit woman, the apartment complex agreed to halt their eviction policy and instead offer early lease termination and relocation for victims who need to leave their homes to protect their safety. Kary Moss, ACLU of Michigan Executive Director and former staff attorney for the ACLU National Women’s Rights Project notes that “Landlords often only learn about domestic violence because victims have sought the help of police or the courts. When victims know that they may face eviction if a landlord finds out about the abuse, they are less likely to seek [help] and more likely to submit to the abuse.” The United Conference of Mayors determined in a 2005 study that domestic violence is a primary cause of homelessness. In this time of severe economic crisis, the need to protect women’s rights at home and abroad has never been greater. Let us know what you will be doing to honor women around the globe by commenting below.

It all started when Rev. Edward Pinkney, a community organizer and associate pastor at the Hopewell Baptist Church in Benton Harbor, Michigan, wrote a newspaper editorial condemning racial injustice in the criminal courts of Berrien County. He also expressed his opinion that a particular judge -- Judge Alfred M. Butzbaugh -- was “racist and dumb.” Then, borrowing from the Book of Deuteronomy, Rev. Pinkney predicted that if Judge Butzbaugh did not change his ways, God would punish him "with consumption and with a fever and with an inflammation and with extreme burning." The next thing Rev. Pinkney knew he was serving a prison sentence of three to ten years in prison -- yes, years -- for "threatening" Judge Butzbaugh with the wrath of God. As a result the ACLU of Michigan is representing a Baptist minister in what may be the first case of a clergyman thrown into prison for predicting what God might do. The implications of throwing an individual in jail for speaking out against government are far reaching. Our democracy cannot function unless all citizens, whatever their political persuasion or favorite Biblical passage, are free to publicize their views without fear of retaliation by the government. Political opinions and religious prognostication can be harsh, offensive, even alarming to some, but allowing citizens to express their opinions without fear of imprisonment is a distinguishing aspect of American democracy. Free speech does have its limitations however; understandably, the Constitution does not protect "true threats." The problem with Rev. Pinkney’s sentencing, as the ACLU argued in its brief to the Michigan Court of Appeals, was that Rev. Pinkney never threatened Judge Butzbaugh. He quoted the Bible and predicted that God might punish the judge. That means since Rev. Pinkney's powers do not include telling God what to do, to my knowledge, that his statement was no threat. Simply his statements were political commentary and religious prognostication, which of course are fully protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Recently, the ACLU scored a major victory in Rev. Pinkney's case by convincing the Michigan Court of Appeals that Rev. Pinkney should be released on bail while he pursues his appeal. After serving over a year in prison he was finally released on Christmas Eve. While an important milestone, Rev. Pickney’s release signaled the start of a new battle. Despite a court order from the Michigan Court of Appeals saying he should be released, the trial court imposed a long list of highly restrictive bond conditions -- including 24-hour-per-day house arrest and a ban on participating in any capacity in a political campaign. In addition to those conditions, the Reverend was also banned from giving public speeches. Without question, these conditions are unreasonable, unconstitutional, and thoroughly undermine the Court of Appeals' order granting Rev. Pinkney bail. Rev. Pinkney's allegedly "threatening" newspaper editorial began with these words: "It is our constitutional duty as American citizens to hold our elected officials accountable for their words, actions and inaction of wrongdoing. We must draw the line and decide what to do if that line is crossed, and we must use our Constitution." All Americans should be horrified when a preacher is thrown into prison for criticizing a judge and quoting the Bible. We must, indeed, "use our Constitution" to make sure it never happens again. As a result, the ACLU is asking the Court of Appeals to remove these conditions and restore Rev. Pinkney's basic constitutional rights while his appeal is underway.

On a trip to London in 2003, I visited the archives of the British Library. There, among treasures like an original copy of the Magna Carta, was a letter from Charles Darwin to fellow naturalist Alfred Wallace dated November 13, 1859 – the year of the publication of On the Origin of Species. In this letter, Darwin tells Wallace to expect a copy of On the Origin of Species in the post and asks for his general impressions. Most profoundly, though, on the subject of introducing his evolutionary theory to the world, he writes: "God knows what the public will think." Standing over that letter, reading that sentence, I remember wondering if that was simply an innocent rumination resulting from his past conversations about faith and science with others or if Darwin knew that, even 150 years later, he would be the face of a debate that humans passionately argue more than ever. The ACLU is often accused of taking extreme positions on this debate. We are erroneously characterized as “anti-religious” and gross misperceptions about the ACLU’s position on religious freedom and belief exist nationwide. We believe that the freedom to worship as we choose, individually, was one of the core tenets of our founding fathers when drafting the Constitution. Freedom of religious expression is something that we, like you, deeply value as a fundamental freedom. I believe that everyone in this country values this freedom. Unfortunately, too many peoples’ perception of our position on religious liberty are influenced by uninformed sources – those that too often misinterpret the actions we take to protect freedom of religion. No other issue on the ACLU docket stirs more controversy and debate than protecting religious freedom. As you go through your routine today – Darwin’s 200th birthday – know that we are grateful for your unwavering support on all of our issues, especially those that are the least popular.

What I saw was belly dancers, bats and bongs. What I felt was a sense of fear imposed through a carefully orchestrated musical score, CSI-style taglines at the bottom of the screen and a dramatic baritone announcer. What I heard was a cocktail of scare tactics and exuberant patriotism as the importance of each drug hit was underscored by a reminder that narcotics money funded terrorists who were out to destroy our country. What I did not get from ABC’s new series “Homeland Security,” however, was the truth. In short, this “reality” series offers a picture that is anything but real. Although many of the images in the show were disturbing, I was even more concerned by what I did not see. These omissions dramatically distorted the series’ depiction of border patrol’s actions. For instance, amongst all of the stops conducted in the hour-long premier a few weeks ago, only one was the result of mistaken identity. Guns a’blazing, the officers surrounded a car filled with an entire family, only to discover that the man inside was not, in fact, the armed felon that they originally believed him to be. The show quickly glossed over this incident, only taking the time to highlight that this mistake “did not take long to discover.” Yet we know that these mistakes happen all the time because the internal DHS watch-lists are riddled with inaccuracies. Moreover, these false stops continue to happen to the same people, as there is no centralized mechanism for correction. Finally, in direct contrast to the show’s editing, the duration and conditions of these detentions often are dramatically different from what was shown on ABC. I know of these things because of my experiences at the ACLU. Most recently, a woman who regularly travels between Michigan and Canada to visit her parents approached our office. At least once a month, she is stopped at the border based on a mistake that has yet to be corrected. During her last stop, she was physically searched by a male officer, handcuffed, separated from her family and detained for several hours without any explanation. When the officers finally realized their mistake, no apology was offered. This is our true reality. The show’s treatment of airport security measures was similarly lacking. In the final segment, a tearful TSA agent explained that his job was to keep the air safe for families because, well, he had kids too. According to ABC’s footage, the most significant drawback to these increased safety measures are the discarded water bottles and containers of lotion. But this pales in comparison to the invasions of privacy that regularly occur as blackberries and laptops are opened, searched and in some instances, destroyed, without any probable cause in the name of airport security. In just one example of this repeated practice, CBP seized and searched Imam Mohammad Ali Elhah’s laptop. When they returned the laptop 20 minutes later, the hard drive was destroyed. The Imam lost over eight years of work, and again, no apology was offered. This is our true reality. If the dismal ratings are any indicator, Homeland Security will be cancelled soon. But the real life experiences on the ground that the show refuses to depict will remain unless and until the new administration changes the policies and practices of the DHS. This is our true reality.