By Jennifer Dalven, Reproductive Freedom Project

Forty years ago today, the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that recognized that a pregnant woman has a right to make her own decision about whether to have a child or have an abortion. Since then, some politicians have been trying to take that decision out of a woman’s hands. But over the past two years, these efforts have reached record levels. In those two short years, our elected representatives found the time to pass almost 140 provisions designed to interfere with a woman and her family’s private decision about abortion.

If you’ve had the feeling things have been getting worse, you are right.  In fact, more than half of all American women now live in a state where the legislature is hostile to a woman’s access to abortion. (That’s up from less 1/3 just a decade ago).
Now, of course, we don’t all feel the same way about abortion and we don’t have to. But we should be able to agree that this incredibly important and personal decision is better made by a woman, her family, and her doctor than by politicians sitting in the state legislature or on Capitol Hill.

Indeed, the American people have shown they don't want politicians to interfere in personal, private decision-making. Who can say whether it was the bills that require a woman to have an ultrasound and look at the picture before she has an abortion? Or that all-male panel that testified before Congress about whether a woman’s insurance plan should cover her contraception? Or that telling comment about “legitimate rape?” Or perhaps it was those 140 new restrictions? Regardless of what the tipping point was, one thing is clear: the American people have had enough.

This year, across the country, people came together to speak out against these restrictions and those who pushed them. In states like Virginia, Oklahoma, Michigan,and Idaho, women and men took time out of their busy lives to go to their state capitols and tell their representatives to leave these decisions where they belong: with a woman and her family.

And these folks aren’t just talking, they are voting. Recently, voters in states as diverse as Mississippi (yes, Mississippi!) and Colorado, Florida and North Dakota all rejected ballot measures that would have interfered with a woman’s ability to make her own decisions about pregnancy and abortion. And this year, politicians with extreme views on abortion lost at the polls, even in conservative states. In fact, Americans are so fed up with politicians trying to interfere with a woman’s private health care decision, that a Gallup poll found that 39 percent of women in 12 battleground states said abortion was the most important issue for women in the election.

Incredibly, however, some politicians still haven’t gotten the message. Right after the election, in a lame-duck session in Michigan, with the public locked out of the statehouse, politicians snuck through onerous and unnecessary regulations on women’s health centers. And, over the holidays, the governor of Virginia quietly advanced new restrictions designed to shut down all women’s health centers in the state -- you know, the very restrictions that the Health Commissioner resigned over because they were based on politics rather than protecting a woman’s health.

These stealth attacks notwithstanding, two things haven’t changed. First, Americans have had enough of politicians trying to take that decision away from a woman and her family. Second, if we continue to speak out, we can stem this tide. We can stop politicians from interfering in a woman’s private health care decisions. We can get them back to working for American women and their families instead of against them. Forty years after Roe, it’s about time.

Date

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 8:30am

Featured image

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Gender Equity and Reproductive Justice

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

By Michael Tan, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, & Joanne Lin, Washington Legislative Office

Today, Roll Call published an op-ed we wrote on how curtailing immigration prisons is an easy way for Congress to begin to reduce the deficit, cut government spending, and reform our flawed immigration system.

In addition, there are several steps the Obama Administration can and should take now, without waiting for Congress, to reduce its unnecessary and expensive reliance on immigration prisons.  Here are four:

  1. Alternative forms of mandatory custody: the Administration should take a more reasonable view of mandatory “custody,” by using forms of supervision short of incarceration, such as electronic monitoring, curfew restrictions, and home visits.  The criminal justice world has long recognized that such forms of custody can protect public safety effectively at a fraction of the cost of incarceration.  DHS’s own ATD program has worked to ensure that 94% of people appear for their immigration hearings.
  2. Bond hearings at six months of detention: the Administration should provide bond hearings in front of immigration judges to all people who are imprisoned at least six months.  Under current practice, thousands of people—including longtime lawful permanent residents facing deportation for minor crimes; asylum seekers arrested at the border; and individuals seeking federal court review in their deportation cases—are held without ever being given a bond hearing.  As a result, many are needlessly imprisoned for months or even years on the taxpayer’s dime.  A growing majority of federal courts have recognized that such long-term imprisonment without a bond hearing raises serious constitutional concerns.
  3. Better screening for mandatory custody: the Administration should reform the screening process to determine who is subject to mandatory custody.  DHS places individuals charged with deportation for certain crimes in mandatory lock-up.  But many of these individuals are not actually deportable—either because their alleged crimes turn out not to be deportable offenses, or because they are eligible for immigration relief.  Mandatory custody is particularly irrational in these cases because these individuals have every incentive to fight their cases rather than flee.
  4. No mandatory custody for old offenses: the Administration should also stop subjecting people to mandatory custody for old crimes.  The immigration laws require DHS to take custody of immigrants “when [they are] released” from criminal custody in order for mandatory custody to apply.  But DHS applies mandatory detention to people it takes into custody any time after their release from criminal custody—even if more than a decade later.  As a result, DHS applies mandatory detention to individuals who have been out in society for years and leading productive lives.  The overwhelming majority of federal courts have held that this policy violates the immigration statute.  The Administration should abandon this senseless practice.
Americans do not need — and can no longer afford — immigration prisons for people who do not need to be locked up.  In fact, it is in DHS' interest to limit its use of mandatory detention so that it has the flexibility to use its limited detention beds only on immigrants who need to be detained.  Notably, former INS officials have publicly criticized mandatory immigration lock-up as "unfair and inefficient" policy. These four steps will help ensure that our detention dollars are spent in a smart, prudent, and humane way.

 

Date

Friday, January 18, 2013 - 2:30pm

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Immigrants' Rights

Show related content

Author:
Michael Tan

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU of Southern California RSS