Tag Archives: American Civil Liberties Union

June 14, 2013 · 10:08 AM

Kansas’ New Science Standards Make Evolution And Climate Change Key Part Of Curriculum

Kansas Board Of Education

Kansas State Board of Education members Ken Willard and Steve Roberts. (Image credit: John Hanna/AP)

The question used to be: “What’s the matter with Kansas?”  Now we can say with just a hint of trepidation that it looks like Kansas has finally awaken from it’s own personal dark ages…

The Huffington Post

The Kansas State Board of Education voted Tuesday to adopt the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), a new science curriculum that treats evolution and climate change as fact and promotes hands-on learning.

Officials in Kansas previously helped craft the K-12 curriculum with the help of 25 other states and several national organizations. The standards have already been approved by state boards in Rhode Island and Kentucky, according to Education Week.

The Kansas board passed the new standards in an 8-2 vote, and encountered significantly less opposition to evolution and climate change principles than in the past, reports the Associated Press. The state voted to weaken evolution teaching in 1999 and 2005, although it adopted an evolution-friendly science curriculum in 2007.

Nonetheless a report released Thursday by the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute claims Kansas’ previous standards were “clearly superior” to the NGSS. The reviewers make no mention of the standards’ treatment of evolution or climate change, but they say the approved curriculum overlooks key concepts and places too much emphasis on hands-on learning.

“We think that the ones you are ushering out the door are superior,” Institute President Chester Finn said in a conference call with reporters, per the Associated Press. “I hope you give them a very nice going-away party.”

While Kansas updates its statewide curriculum, a school board in Ohio is currently considering adopting creationism into its curriculum, despite opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union.

Related articles

2 Comments

Filed under Climate Change, Evolution

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 6, 2013 · 12:39 PM

What You Should Know About The Government’s Massive Domestic Surveillance Program

This comprehensive look at the program should clear up some things…

Think Progress

The Guardian newspaper revealed on Wednesday night that the National Security Administration (NSA) is collecting information about the telephone records of millions of Americans through a warrant obtained in a secret court under authority granted in the Patriot Act. This is the first public confirmation that widespread surveillance of Americans, initiated under President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks, has continued under the Obama administration. The program captures phone numbers and other information, but not the content of the conversations.

Warrantless surveillance began shortly after the September 2001 terrorist attacks. The Bush administration began a secret surveillance program in 2001, asking AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth to turn over communications records to the National Security Agency (NSA). The agency’s goal was “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders, the USA Today reported in 2006.

Program fell under court supervision in 2007. Following public uproar, the administration placed the program under the surveillance of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In 2008, Congress expanded the Act to allow both foreign and domestic surveillance “as long as the intent is to gather foreign intelligence.” The measure also provided “retroactive immunityto the telecom companies that assisted the Bush administration.”

Congress extended the law through 2017. In December of 2012, Congress voted to reauthorize The FISA Amendments Act until 2017. The Act “allows federal agencies to eavesdrop on communications and review email” with a warrant from the secret FISA court. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), a critic of the program, offered an amendment during floor debate that would have required the NSA disclose an estimate of how often information on Americans was collected and require authorities to obtain a warrant if they wish to search for private information in the NSA databases. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Wyden, along with Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), wrote, “We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act.” Wyden and Udall also noted that the administration promised August 2009 to establish “a regular process for reviewing, redacting and releasing significant opinions” of the court, though “not a single redacted opinion has been released.”

What the Verizon order says. The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ordered Verizon — which has 121 million customers — to turn over metadata “on an ongoing daily basis” for a three-month period between April 25, 2013 and July 19, 2013. The order does not require the government to turn over the content of the calls, but it must share information about the numbers dialed, received and length of call.

What civil libertarians say. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized the administration’s order, noting that “From a civil liberties perspective, the program could hardly be any more alarming.” “It’s a program in which some untold number of innocent people have been put under the constant surveillance of government agents,” Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU’s deputy legal director, said in a statement. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) also criticized the order. “This bulk data collection is being done under interpretations of the law that have been kept secret from the public,” he said. “Significant FISA court opinions that determine the scope of our laws should be declassified. Can the FBI or the NSA really claim that they need data scooped up on tens of millions of Americans?”

What the Patriot Act says. The order falls under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the government to make broad demands on telephone carriers for information about calls. Under the law, the government isn’t required to show probable cause, but rather, “there are reasonable grounds to believe” that the tangible things sought are “relevant to an authorized investigation . . . to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” An expert told the Washington Post that the order “appears to be a routine renewal of a similar order first issued by the same court in 2006.” The order is apparently “reissued routinely every 90 days and that it is not related to any particular investigation by the FBI or any other agency.”

How the government is responding. The White House responded to the Guardian story by insisting that the data is a “critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States.” “It allows counter terrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States,” an official said. Officials say they will investigate the source of the leak to the Guardian.

UPDATE

During a press conference, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said that the order the Guardian obtained is “the exact three-month renewal” of program underway for the past seven years. “It’s called protecting America,” she said. Asked if other phone companies are giving similar data to NSA, the senators said, “We can’t answer that.”

Related articles

3 Comments

Filed under Domestic Surveillance, National Security

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

January 28, 2013 · 12:03 AM

Arizona Bill Requires Hospitals To Screen Immigration Status Of Uninsured Patients

So much for: 

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free…” ~ Emma Lazarus

This proposal is wrong on so many levels.  Does this “bill” demand that someone who is gravely ill and does not have their “papers” must be denied care and reported to immigration?  Think of the scenarios in which our country would abandon and deport people while ill.

Think Progress

Hospitals would need to check the immigration status of uninsured patients under a new bill introduced by an Arizona lawmaker. Rep. Steve Smith’s (R) H.B. 2293 would require hospital staff to “reasonably confirm” patients’ status during check-in or treatment, and immediately report those who do not have the required papers to immigration officials.

Smith claimed it is a hospital’s civic duty to check immigration status:

“I would hope if you witnessed somebody who is not lawfully present in this country taking advantage of, getting, acquiring any benefit or social service or something that they’re not entitled to, or something they’re abusing or neglected, I would hope somebody would pick up the phone and go, ‘Maricopa police, Buckeye police, I think — I’m not sure — but I think this is happening.”’

The Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association has already rejected the attempt to turn hospitals into another front for immigration enforcement: “When does this begin or end?” a spokesman said. “What other industry should be screening their customers for citizenship verification?” The National Coalition for Immigrant Women’s Rights and National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health also called the measure “unconscionable” and legalized “harassment“.  With roughly 19 percent of Arizona’s population lacking health insurance, the bill could deter many immigrants and their children from seeking care, as well as burden hospitals.

Related articles

2 Comments

Filed under U.S. Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 24, 2013 · 12:13 AM

Secretary Of Defense Lifts Ban On Women In Combat

Many women have been fighting the system since 1994 to lift the ban on military women in combat.  It appears they finally won…

Think Progress

In a surprise move, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta removed the military ban on women in combat on Wednesday. Lifting the ban will open service on the front lines to thousands of women.

According to the Associated Press, the move was recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Smaller exemptions to the rule were passed in 2012, but the new decision opens up 238,000 positions where women were formerly banned.

Women have been traditionally barred from serving in ground combat units, such as infantry, artillery, armor or as special operations commandos. However, women have been serving in combat roles for years as well, as recent conflicts have blurred the lines of combat and non-combat duties. While the ACLU last year sued the Pentagon for the right for women to take up positions on the front line, and the Marines recently began allowing women to serve as officers, the timing of Panetta’s announcement comes as a surprise.

Some Republicans have opposed putting women in combat because of alleged physical inferiority to men. However, a survey of several NATO allies with women in front line roles in Afghanistan indicated that, far from causing problems, female officers actually performed better in intelligence-gathering roles than their male counterparts.

Military chiefs must report their initial implementation plans by May 15, and can request special exceptions until January 2016 for any positions they feel cannot be open to women.

Related articles

1 Comment

Filed under Leon Panetta

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

January 5, 2013 · 1:28 PM

Undeterred By Court Order, Iowa Official Tries Again To Push Through Voter Purge

Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz

Many have suggested that the Republican Party is headed toward obscurity and insignificance.

This story and all the efforts at voter suppression, the war on women and other nefarious measures to insure that conservative ideology is dominant national policy, will be the main reason for the demise of the GOP…

Think Progress

When Secretary of State Matt Schultz attempted to purge voters from the rolls in advance of the November 2012 election, a county judgetemporarily blocked the move, finding that the rules issued by Schultz created fear and uncertainty and could deter legitimate voters. But that risk of voter suppression hasn’t stopped Schultz from proposing a new slightly tweaked rule to remove registered voters in the name of alleged voter fraud.

The rule would allow Schultz’s office to challenge the legitimacy of registered voters who are listed as noncitizens in the Department of Transportation database. Citing a DOT list of some 3,000 registered voters labeled noncitizens, Schultz said, “I have to do something. I can’t just sit back and do nothing when we know people are taking advantage of the system.”

But Schultz’s testimony just last month before the Senate Judiciary Committee shows that he doesn’t know people are taking advantage of the system. When probed by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) for evidence of voter fraud, Schultz cited just six arrests — not convictions – out of 1.6 million votes cast. And this was after a special agent was designated to specifically target voter fraud.

As for the list of 3,000 people, that claim was easily dismissed by the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund’s Nina Perales during the same hearing:

Secretary Schultz … said he had identified 3,500 noncitizens using the driver’s license rolls. He did not. He identified 3,500 people who were noncitizens at the time that they obtained their driver’s licenses. And we know that since that time and before they registered to vote, the overwhelming majority and perhaps all of them have become naturalized citizens. So at this point, anyone who undertakes to accuse people of non-citizenship based on driver’s licenses should be on notice that this is not correct and should not be done. It’s fundamentally unfair.

Attempts to prove voter fraud nationwide have fallen similarly short, with less than 20 instances of fraud charges offered in most states. Florida GOP officials have even publiclyadmitted voter suppression was the goal of that state’s aggressive and inaccurate purge.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups are also arguing that Schultz cannot implement a purge without going through the state legislature. The ruling that blocked Schultz’s last attempt said that, at the very least, Schultz should have gone through the proper rulemaking procedure that allows for public input instead of going forward on his own. Schultz is now going through that procedure, but the court could still hold this process insufficient.

Related articles

3 Comments

Filed under GOP, Voter Suppression

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

November 28, 2012 · 8:08 AM

Supreme Court Inaction Boosts Right To Record Police Officers

Score another one for democracy…

The Huffington Post

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court  declined to review a decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocking the enforcement of an Illinois eavesdropping law. The broadly written law — the most stringent in the country — makes it a felony to make an audio recording of someone without their permission, punishable by four to 15 years in prison.

Many states have similar “all-party consent” law, which mean one must get the permission of all parties to a conversation before recording it. But in all of those states — except for Massachusetts and Illinois — the laws include a provision that the parties being recorded must have a reasonable expectation of privacy for it to be a crime to record them.

The Illinois law once included such a provision, but it was removed by the state legislature in response to an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that threw out the conviction of a man accused of recording police from the back of a squad car. That ruling found that police on the job have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Illinois and Massachusetts laws have been used to arrest people who attempt to record on-duty police officers and other public officials. In one of the more notorious cases, Chicago resident Tiawanda Moore was arrested in 2010 when she attempted to use her cell phone to record officers in a Chicago police station.

Moore had come to the station to report an alleged sexual assault by a Chicago cop, and says she became frustrated when internal affairs officers allegedly bullied her and attempted to talk her out of filing the report. Moore was eventually acquitted.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is planning a police accountability project in Chicago that will involve recording police while they’re on duty. The organization wanted to be sure its employees and volunteers wouldn’t be charged with felonies.

The 7th Circuit Court found a specific First Amendment right to record police officers. It’s the second federal appeals court to strike down a conviction for recording police. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that a man wrongly arrested for recording cops could sue the arresting officers for violating his First Amendment rights.

Continue reading here…

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under U.S. Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 2, 2012 · 12:19 PM

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Ruling: Judge Halts Enforcement Of Law For Election

It appears that Judge Robert Simpson’s ruling might just be a band-aid for the law’s many problems.  Apparently voters don’t have to show ID but the poll worker can still ask for it!

Sounds like a quick-fix that may be filled with confusion and dismay on election day.

The Huffington Post

A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday postponed the enforcement of the state’s new strict voter ID requirement until after the November presidential election.

In a much-anticipated ruling, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. ordered that voters without government-issued photo ID should be allowed to cast regular ballots.

“That’s a huge win,” said Witold J. Walczak, an attorney with the ACLU of Pennsylvania, “because last week the judge was suggesting that he was going to have every [voter without ID] vote provisionally.”

At the same time, the judge specifically ruled to allow the state to continue its education and advertising campaign, which currently tells voters that IDs are required.

Walczak said that if the state doesn’t change that message, “we may be back in court.”

“You can’t be telling people you need ID if you’re not actually requiring ID,” he said. “That advertising has to be modified to reflect reality.”

“Confusion is not a good thing on election day,” he said. “Confusion is going to mean some voters stay home. Confusion is going to mean that some poll workers get it wrong.”

Matthew Keeler, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania secretary of state, said the state is “pleased because the law itself hasn’t changed. What’s going on is there’s a soft rollout for the general election, just like the primary.”

Voters will still be asked for ID, he noted. If they don’t have it, they’ll be given information on how to get it.

As for the advertising campaign, “we’re looking into what needs to be updated,” Keeler said. “To completely take that away, would just muddle the area, as it were.”

“We’ll work on fixing things if we think they need to be fixed,” Keeler added.

Opponents of the law had expressed fears that it could dissuade or prevent tens of thousands of mostly poor, elderly, young or infirm citizens from voting.

Simpson’s injunction “will have the effect of extending the express transition provisions of [the new law] through the general election,” the judge wrote. That means that, just like during the primary election, voters will be asked for ID but still be allowed to vote if they don’t have it.

The law as passed by the Republican legislature and signed by the Republican governor had only allowed people without ID to cast “provisional” ballots, which would be thrown out unless they returned with ID within six days.

The Pennsyvlania legislature is one of several that, after Republicans took control in 2010, passed legislation to make it harder, rather than easier, to vote.

The voter ID bills, like similar moves to restrict voter registration, eliminate early voting, purge voter rolls and send pollwatchers into minority precincts. All are ostensibly intended to prevent voter fraud, an almost nonexistent problem according to research on the issue. In contrast, such moves have a disproportionate effect on minorities and young voters, and ultimately serve to block legitimate but probably Democratic voters from exercising their constitutional rights.

Simpson’s new decision comes six weeks after he upheld the entire law as is.

His initial ruling dealt mostly with whether the General Assembly had the authority to establish such voting requirements. Simpson decided it did — basing his decision in part on a bigoted and discredited 19th century state court decision.

Opponents of the law appealed, and Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court sent the case backto Simpson, this time ordering him to rule on the practical side of things, namely: Was the state upholding the law’s procedures for deployment of ID cards such that there would be “no voter disenfranchisement” as a result?

The high court’s order seemed designed to force the judge to enjoin the law, given that the state had stipulated it wasn’t following the exact procedures set out in the law and that so many registered voters clearly still lacked ID.

Witnesses last week movingly described the many frustrating barriers faced by the elderly and infirm in particular in their attempts to get ID.

But on Thursday, Simpson indicated that he would let “the good parts” of the bill stand.

Related articles

2 Comments

Filed under Voter Fraud, Voter Identification, Voter Suppression

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 30, 2012 · 10:25 AM

Check Out Your Voter Registration Status

Once again, Mario Piperni’s website proves why it’s a must read site.

Mario Piperni

I have heard so much stuff about voter suppression and some of the difficulties being reported in regard to all the new Voter ID Laws being passed in a lot of states that I thought it might be helpful to share an article I found on the Internet about Voting Rights.

The article I found is reportedly published by The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and reportedly shows voting rights from state to state.

I tried the site out and I discovered a map where all the states are listed and I discovered that when I click on my particular state, the voter information comes up where I can read it and kind of interact with it.  I found out by clicking on the appropriate thing that my own voter registration shows as being fine and I should be good to go.

There is a note on the page that says checking registrations is important this year because there have been so many reported changes in the rules in various states.

From what I have been reading and hearing lately, I decided early on that it is probably not all that cool to just go ahead and assume that everything is alright with my personal registration because if the rules have changed, there might be something that I have to do to get current – – – so I did what I thought was the right thing to do to make sure I can vote without any hassle – – – I checked it out.

I didn’t want to encounter any unpleasant surprises when it comes time for me to cast my vote this year.

It seems, from all that I have been seeing and hearing during this election cycle, that there is a lot of concern all around the country about issues surrounding the possibilities of one kind of voter fraud or another and about the new Voted ID laws – – – it seems to have gotten pretty hot out there about voters, voting and voting rights this time around.

So, having a desire to be a good little political blogger, I thought it would be nice to share this article for anyone who might be interested. Voting rights for your specific state can be found at Let Me Vote and your voter registration status can be determined at:  Can I Vote.

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under Voter Suppression

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

August 16, 2012 · 11:15 AM

Brewer’s Immigration Blast At Obama Looks Like A Dud

Brewer’s Immigration Blast At Obama Looks Like A Dud

H/t:  Jamar L. Freeze

Think Progress

At first blush, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer seemed to be defying the federal government once again on Wednesday night.

The Republican governor signed an executive order saying Arizona had no plans to give government benefits, including drivers licenses, to the tens of thousands of young, undocumented immigrants in that state who would be getting work permits and immunity from deportation under President Obama’s new immigration policy.

But while the order sounded harsh, at least one high-ranking Democrat in Arizona quickly threw cold water on it, saying Brewer’s declaration appears to be little more than hot air.

“It doesn’t seem to really do anything,” state Senate Democratic Leader David Schapira told TPM. “I see it as her once again trying to grandstand on the issue of immigration.”

The order came the same week that the Obama administration began rolling out a program to bring undocumented young people out of the shadows and give them the ability to work and do things like pay taxes. Known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program had youths lining up throughout the nation to find out how to apply for it.

Brewer, who signed Arizona’s harsh immigration law known as SB 1070 and who has butted heads with Obama on immigration multiple times, said her executive order was a direct response to the president’s program. But whether that response actually changes the way Arizona will deal with the program is another matter.

Schapira pointed out that Arizona already had a number of strict immigration laws in place, including one that barred illegal immigrants from getting drivers licenses or state issued identification cards. The law may have already been interpreted to bar any newly immune immigrants from getting those state IDs, Schapira said. That means Brewer’s order effectively carried no weight at all.

Even the governor admitted at a news conference late in the day that nothing really changed because of her order. “It actually is no different than what was already in place,” Brewer said.

She also struggled to describe her action on a conservative talk radio show in Phoenix, saying it was only meant to guide state workers on how to handle the situation.

“It was an order to clarify where Arizona stands on this position so there would be no confusion for the directors of my agencies,” the governor said in the phone interview with KFYI’s Mike Broomhead.

Later in the same conversation, she stumbled when describing what role the state would play under the president’s new program. “We will issue an employment authorization card to these people,” Brewer said, then paused as if listening to somebody in the background. “The feds will, yeah, the feds will.”

After the order was issued, Alessandra Soler, the Arizona director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the whole thing made it look as if Brewer didn’t really understand the law in the first place.

“This is yet another reason why Arizona has no business trying to regulate immigration matters,” Soler said in a written statement.

Yet she also added that the ACLU believes neither Brewer’s order nor the current Arizona laws will bar the newly documented young immigrants from getting state issued IDs. “This order conflicts with state and federal law because people who are granted deferred action will, in fact, have authorized presence in the United States and under Arizona law people who have authorized presence are eligible to apply for Arizona state identification,” Soler said.

Regardless, other immigration activists and people involved in politics told TPM it was too soon to know for sure whether Brewer’s order would change anything. They said immigration attorneys would be looking at the language in the coming days to figure out what, if anything, comes next.

Listen to Brewer’s appearance on KFYI in Phoenix.

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

August 8, 2012 · 10:17 AM

Schools Force Children To Take Pregnancy Test Or Face Expulsion

Now they’re targeting teenage girls…sheesh!

Addicting Info

A Charter school in Delhi, Louisiana has mandated that it must be allowed to see inside a girl’s uterusif she wants to attend their classes. If she objects to this invasion of privacy – or, worse, submits and has a positive pregnancy test – she risks being banned from the school, and forced into home-schooling.

Please note, this is not from The Onion or a Saturday Night Live skit ridiculing the south. This is a real school, with real kids and now, a real ACLU challenge.

So, being pregnant and under 18 in this Louisiana school means you not only have to notify your parents (or go to court and beg a judges approval) if you want an abortion, thanks to their Parental Consent Law – victims of incest and child abuse are not exempt from this requirement, raising serious child safety concerns – you also get to worry about being tossed out of your school, regardless of how you became pregnant or whether you even intend to carry to term.

The school’s policy isn’t just illegal under Title IX, it’s downright nauseating; the shame society heaps on to pregnant teens is bad enough without making them pee in a cup on command. The creators of this draconian punishment are probably the same people who spread the “welfare queen” myth because oh-shit-oh-my-god-the-injustice 0.2% of their taxes go to feed poor children.

Not surprisingly, this isn’t even the first time charter schools have embarrassed the great state of Louisiana. Just this past June, the institution calling itself “Accelerated Christian Education” was caught teaching students that evolution is just a conspiracy, holding up the Loch Ness Monster as proof of Creationism. Shortly after that little scandal, Rep. Valarie Hodges was shocked to discover that the education bill funding religious schools in her state would go so far as to cover all religions, not just her brand of Christianity. She promptly withdrew her support.

History demonstrates that fact-based sexual health information, teaching kids how to avoid unintended consequences in the first place, remains the most effective course of action for a school so worried about teen pregnancy. Sadly, there are those in the Republican party which is against common sense, wishing to base health decisions on biblical sources and claiming that as moral.

The executive director of Louisiana Association of Charter Schools admitted to The News Star that this may be “problematic”. The school itself has yet to respond to the ACLU or the press.

Related articles

2 Comments

Filed under Teenage Pregnancy

Tagged as , , , , , , ,