AWARE-LA
Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
More States Introduce Costly Immigration Enforcement Bills in 2012
01 day ago
Despite the devastating consequences of state immigration laws in Alabamaand Arizona, legislators in other states have introduced similar enforcement bills this year. Legislators in Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia introduced an array of costly immigration enforcement bills in their 2012 legislative sessions—some which are modeled on Arizona’s SB 1070. While study after study continues to document how these extreme state laws are costing state economies, disrupting entire industries and driving communities further underground, state legislators clearly aren’t getting the message.
Last month, legislators in Mississippi introduced a slew of anti-immigrant bills. State Senator Joey Fillingane, for example, introduced SB 2090, a bill which requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect is undocumented, makes it a crime to fail to carry proper immigration documents and a crime to harbor or transport an undocumented immigrant, and a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to apply for or solicit work. Both the Mississippi House and Senate passed different versions of this bill, but are expected to hammer out one bill to send to Governor Haley Barbour’s desk for a signature soon.
In Missouri, state Senator Will Kraus recently introduced SB 590, a bill which requires police to determine the immigration status of individuals they reasonably suspect are unauthorized and makes it a crime not to carry immigration documents. Missouri’s bill, like Alabama, however takes the law a step further by requiring schools to verify the immigration status of enrolling students and their parents. Remember that the U.S. Department of Justice blocked a similar provision in Alabama’s immigration law, HB 56, last October. Missouri’s legislature passed the bill out of committee last week—a bill likely to cost Missouri millions.
The House Judiciary Committee in Tennessee advanced an immigration bill this month, HB 2191, a bill which makes it a felony for anyone in the state to knowingly conceal, harbor or transport an undocumented immigrant. Tennessee’s copycat bill, HB 1380—which requires police to question the immigration status of those they suspect of being undocumented—was put on hold this month due to budgetary concerns, despite Governor Bill Haslam’s public support of the bill days earlier. HB 1380 was also shelved last year due to $3 million price tag, but the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Joe Carr, doesn’t seem like he’s giving up.
“Putting it behind the budget doesn’t kill it. It basically parks it,” Carr said. “We are prioritizing the state’s stance on illegal immigration based on the financial resources we have. We’ve got a very targeted approach to tackle illegal immigration here in the state.”
In Virginia, where control of the Governorship, House of Delegates and Senate recently changed hands to those with an enforcement heavy agenda, legislators recently introduced two Arizona copycat bills—SB 460 and its companion bill HB 1060—which allow police to determine the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country without documentation. Although SB 460 failed this week after a split vote in the Senate’s Courts of Justice Committee, it’s companion bill, HB 1060, was recently assigned to Virginia’s House Courts of Justice Sub-Committee.
And that’s only some of the immigration legislation moving through state legislatures. Other states have introduced other enforcement bills this year, each likely to hurt local businesses, families and state coffers.
Just this week, a report out of the University of Alabama estimated that Alabama stands to lose $11 billion in GDP and nearly $265 million in state income and sales tax due to their extreme immigration enforcement law, HB 56. Utah’s copycat law HB 497 (temporarily blocked last year) has cost the state $85,000 to defend, according to government reports. Arizona lost $490 million in tourism revenue last year, $86 million in lost wages, 2,800 lost jobs and more than $1 million in legal fees in defending SB 1070.
As states continue to move forward on these and other immigration enforcement bills, one wonders how much larger the writing on the wall has to be before state legislators realize these laws are costing taxpayers. Yes we need solutions to our immigration problems, but creating a complicated and costly patchwork of state laws isn’t bringing us any closer to that solution.
Photo by Africa Studio.
NYPD Officers Shoot and Kill Three Black Men in One Week
01 day ago
Ramarley Graham, 18, was shot and killed by a NYPD officer in the Bronx on Thursday afternoon after running into his home as undercover officers pursued him. He’s the third person the NYPD have killed in a week. According to the police spokesperson, he was unarmed.
Paul J. Browne, the New York Police Department’s chief spokesman,
said there was “no evidence that he was armed” when the officer, a
member of a narcotics unit, shot him once in the upper left chest, the New York Times reports.
The Graham shooting is the third time in a week that a member of the
NYPD had killed a suspect. On Jan. 26, an off-duty police lieutenant
shot a 22-year-old carjacking suspect in Cypress Hills, Brooklyn. And on
Sunday, an off-duty detective shot a 17-year-old in Bushwick, Brooklyn,
during a mugging, authorities said.
In Graham’s case, police found a small bag of marijuana in the toilet at the home he entered after the pursuit, the NY Times reports. “It’s likely the story will thicken and the NYPD will argue the cop acted in self defense, but right now it looks like the cops killed a kid trying to get rid of a little pot,” said Seth Freed Wessler, Colorlines.com’s investigation reporter.
“Despite directives from the NYPD Commissioner to stop arresting people for simple possession of marijuana, the NYPD actually conducted more marijuana arrests in 2011 than in the previous year,” Wessler said.
In New York City, marijuana arrests strike people of color the hardest. Last year the NYPD made a near-record number of low-level marijuana arrests, making 2011 the second-most prolific period for marijuana arrests in NYC history. Close to 87 percent of those arrested for marijuana were black or Latino, while only 10 percent were white.
“The daily practice of harassing black and Latino kids with stop and frisk policing and then arresting them for simple possession of pot would be bad enough even if it did not lead to shootings. In this case in the Bronx, it looks like the day-to-day drug war left this 18-year-old kid dead,” Wessler said.
The Komen Foundation: Just the Tip of Iceberg.
01 day ago
I’m thrilled that the Susan G. Komen foundation just announced that they would continue funding to Planned Parenthood. Their quick reversal was a response to the PR nightmare their defunding decision sparked. People from all walks of life and from all over the country criticized Komen’s decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood, and took to the streets (well, their computers) donating money to Planned Parenthood and demanding that Komen stand by its commitment to women’s health. And rightfully so. The Komen Foundation appeared to have bowed to pressure from anti-choice extremists willing to put women’s lives at risk by denying them breast cancer screenings in order to advance their radical agenda.
But here is the thing. The Komen Foundation’s decision to strip Planned Parenthood of its funding is just the tip of the iceberg. Last year, state after state put politics before women’s health and cut off funding for Planned Parenthood and other health care facilities that provide critical health services for low-income women and men because those organizations provide or refer for abortion care.
What happened in Kansas is typical. In its zeal to shut down Planned Parenthood, the state stopped federal money from going to Planned Parenthood and other health centers that provide critical health services. This money was designated by the federal government to provide basic health care — services like contraceptives and cancer screenings. But, just like the Komen Foundation, the legislators in Kansas put abortion politics before women’s health. Had it not been for the ACLU’s lawsuit , the Dodge City Family Planning Clinic would have been forced to shut its doors leaving the low-income residents of a large three county area without any means to access these basic services.
And it doesn’t end there. The state of Arizona went so far as to kick organizations that even refer a woman for an abortion out of a program that encourages individuals to donate to organizations that serve the working poor. Again, legislators were literally willing to put women’s lives at risk in an effort to scare off organizations, like our client, the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, from having anything to do with abortion. On behalf of the coalition, whose members sometimes refer their clients — domestic violence survivors who have been the subject to sexual assault — for abortion, the ACLU sued and won. But, already a bill has been introduced in the Arizona legislature that would again attempt to penalize organizations involved in abortion care.
In fact, in the last year, states from Colorado to North Carolina to New Hampshire passed laws that punished organizations that provide or refer for abortions by stripping them of money to provide basic health care services. And states around the country are getting in line to do the same this year.
So for those of us who were rightly outraged about the Komen Foundation, and took action and made them pay attention — let’s celebrate that victory. But we can’t stop there. For the sake of women’s health, we must be equally vocal in our opposition to these threats coming at us from all across the nation. We must stay engaged and defeat all of the efforts to put women’s lives and health at risk by punishing organizations that provide abortion related care.
Learn more about reproductive rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
CORRECTION: A correction was made for greater accuracy. The first sentence originally read: "I’m thrilled that the Susan G. Komen foundation just announced that they would restore funding to Planned Parenthood."
The Komen Foundation: Just the Tip of Iceberg.
01 day ago
I’m thrilled that the Susan G. Komen foundation just announced that they would continue funding to Planned Parenthood. Their quick reversal was a response to the PR nightmare their defunding decision sparked. People from all walks of life and from all over the country criticized Komen’s decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood, and took to the streets (well, their computers) donating money to Planned Parenthood and demanding that Komen stand by its commitment to women’s health. And rightfully so. The Komen Foundation appeared to have bowed to pressure from anti-choice extremists willing to put women’s lives at risk by denying them breast cancer screenings in order to advance their radical agenda.
But here is the thing. The Komen Foundation’s decision to strip Planned Parenthood of its funding is just the tip of the iceberg. Last year, state after state put politics before women’s health and cut off funding for Planned Parenthood and other health care facilities that provide critical health services for low-income women and men because those organizations provide or refer for abortion care.
What happened in Kansas is typical. In its zeal to shut down Planned Parenthood, the state stopped federal money from going to Planned Parenthood and other health centers that provide critical health services. This money was designated by the federal government to provide basic health care — services like contraceptives and cancer screenings. But, just like the Komen Foundation, the legislators in Kansas put abortion politics before women’s health. Had it not been for the ACLU’s lawsuit , the Dodge City Family Planning Clinic would have been forced to shut its doors leaving the low-income residents of a large three county area without any means to access these basic services.
And it doesn’t end there. The state of Arizona went so far as to kick organizations that even refer a woman for an abortion out of a program that encourages individuals to donate to organizations that serve the working poor. Again, legislators were literally willing to put women’s lives at risk in an effort to scare off organizations, like our client, the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, from having anything to do with abortion. On behalf of the coalition, whose members sometimes refer their clients — domestic violence survivors who have been the subject to sexual assault — for abortion, the ACLU sued and won. But, already a bill has been introduced in the Arizona legislature that would again attempt to penalize organizations involved in abortion care.
In fact, in the last year, states from Colorado to North Carolina to New Hampshire passed laws that punished organizations that provide or refer for abortions by stripping them of money to provide basic health care services. And states around the country are getting in line to do the same this year.
So for those of us who were rightly outraged about the Komen Foundation, and took action and made them pay attention — let’s celebrate that victory. But we can’t stop there. For the sake of women’s health, we must be equally vocal in our opposition to these threats coming at us from all across the nation. We must stay engaged and defeat all of the efforts to put women’s lives and health at risk by punishing organizations that provide abortion related care.
Learn more about reproductive rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
CORRECTION: A correction was made for greater accuracy. The first sentence originally read: "I’m thrilled that the Susan G. Komen foundation just announced that they would restore funding to Planned Parenthood."
Breast Cancer Doesn’t Discriminate Against Men
01 day ago
Raymond Johnson was just 26 when he was diagnosed with breast cancer in South Carolina last summer. When he applied to a federal insurance program created to cover breast cancer treatment, he was denied. Why? Because he is a man.
Although breast cancer primarily affects women, men are also impacted by the disease. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2012, approximately 2,190 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in men, and about 410 men will die of the disease.
Yet male patients are denied Medicaid insurance for breast cancer treatment, such as chemotherapy, because they are not women. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act of 2000 provides Medicaid coverage for treatment to patients who are diagnosed with breast cancer through federally-funded screening programs. Because only women can obtain routine screening through these programs, only women are able to receive coverage for their treatment. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have instructed state Medicaid agencies that male breast cancer patients are categorically excluded from coverage for treatment, even if they meet all other qualifying criteria.
Based on current medical guidelines and the prevalence of the disease in women, providing routine screening to women makes sense. What makes no sense is denying coverage for life-saving treatment to those already diagnosed with breast cancer, simply because they are men. The denial of benefits to patients based solely on their gender is a blatant violation of the Constitution and federal law.
The ACLU sent a letter to the federal Medicaid agency calling on it to extend Medicaid coverage to men who are diagnosed with breast cancer and otherwise satisfy program criteria. The federal government should not be enforcing an obviously discriminatory and unconstitutional policy, and it should not be directing states to do so either.
Tomorrow is World Cancer Day. Its 2012 theme — “Together it is possible” — reminds us that cancer crosses all gender, race, class, and geographic lines and that we must work in unity to treat and prevent it. Our government must recognize that patients should have equal access to breast cancer treatment, regardless of whether they checked M or F in a box.
Help us ask the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare to ensure equal access to breast cancer treatment.
Learn more about breast cancer: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Breast Cancer Doesn’t Discriminate Against Men
01 day ago
Raymond Johnson was just 26 when he was diagnosed with breast cancer in South Carolina last summer. When he applied to a federal insurance program created to cover breast cancer treatment, he was denied. Why? Because he is a man.
Although breast cancer primarily affects women, men are also impacted by the disease. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2012, approximately 2,190 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in men, and about 410 men will die of the disease.
Yet male patients are denied Medicaid insurance for breast cancer treatment, such as chemotherapy, because they are not women. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act of 2000 provides Medicaid coverage for treatment to patients who are diagnosed with breast cancer through federally-funded screening programs. Because only women can obtain routine screening through these programs, only women are able to receive coverage for their treatment. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have instructed state Medicaid agencies that male breast cancer patients are categorically excluded from coverage for treatment, even if they meet all other qualifying criteria.
Based on current medical guidelines and the prevalence of the disease in women, providing routine screening to women makes sense. What makes no sense is denying coverage for life-saving treatment to those already diagnosed with breast cancer, simply because they are men. The denial of benefits to patients based solely on their gender is a blatant violation of the Constitution and federal law.
The ACLU sent a letter to the federal Medicaid agency calling on it to extend Medicaid coverage to men who are diagnosed with breast cancer and otherwise satisfy program criteria. The federal government should not be enforcing an obviously discriminatory and unconstitutional policy, and it should not be directing states to do so either.
Tomorrow is World Cancer Day. Its 2012 theme — “Together it is possible” — reminds us that cancer crosses all gender, race, class, and geographic lines and that we must work in unity to treat and prevent it. Our government must recognize that patients should have equal access to breast cancer treatment, regardless of whether they checked M or F in a box.
Help us ask the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare to ensure equal access to breast cancer treatment.
Learn more about breast cancer: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Planned Parenthood Pres. Thanks Internet for Elevating Importance of Cancer Prevention for Women in Need
01 day ago
Published in it’s entirety, below is a statement by Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood Federation of America president, regarding Komen’s recent decision.
“The outpouring of support for women in need of lifesaving breast cancer screening this week has been astonishing and is a testament to our nation’s compassion and sincerity.
“During the last week, millions spontaneously joined a national conversation about lifesaving breast cancer prevention care and reinforced shared values about access to health care for all. This compassionate outcry in support of those most in need rose above political, ideological, and cultural divides, and will surely be recognized as one of our nation’s better moments during a contentious political time. Planned Parenthood thanks each and every person who has contributed to elevating the importance of breast cancer prevention for so many women in need.
“In recent weeks, the treasured relationship between the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and Planned Parenthood has been challenged, and we are now heartened that we can continue to work in partnership toward our shared commitment to breast health for the most underserved women. We are enormously grateful that the Komen Foundation has clarified its grantmaking criteria, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with Komen partners, leaders and volunteers. What these past few days have demonstrated is the deep resolve all Americans share in the fight against cancer, and we honor those who are at the helm of this battle.
“Planned Parenthood has been a trusted partner with the Komen Foundation in early cancer detection and prevention services. In particular, Planned Parenthood helps the Komen Foundation reach vulnerable populations — low-income women, African-American women, and Latinas — especially in rural areas and underserved communities where Planned Parenthood health centers are their only source of health care. With Komen Foundation grants, over the past five years, Planned Parenthood health centers provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and more than 6,400 mammogram referrals. With the outpouring of support over the past week, even more women in need will receive lifesaving breast cancer care.”
Collection of ‘Planned Parenthood Saved Me’ Stories on Tumblr
01 day ago
Media technologist & strategist Deanna Zandt started a Tumblr this week that includes stories submitted by “women whose lives were saved or changed because they had access to affordable healthcare like cancer screenings though Planned Parenthood.”
“I know I keep saying WOW, but– in just a couple days, @PPSavedMe has gotten ~1000 followers on Tumblr,” Zandt tweeted Friday. (Zandt is a board member of ARC, which publishes Colorlines.com.)
Below is a sample of the touching stories:
Just married with no health insurance, PP was the only place I could go to get affordable birth control and screenings. A pap smear turned up abnormal cells that could develop into cervical cancer. If I had waited until I had full health insurance to get screened it might have been too late to prevent cancer. I AM PRO-LIFE BUT I STILL SUPPORT PLANNED PARENTHOOD!
and another one:
I was a young latina with no money and living in a fairly conservative house where going to a “woman’s doctor” meant only one thing, pregnancy. So I went to Planned Parenthood for a gyn chek up and they found abnormal cells in my pap smear.
and another one:
I was alone in a new city, between jobs and without health insurance, when I discovered a lump in my breast. After worrying about it for several weeks, I gave in and made an appointment with Planned Parenthood. The doctor there assessed my situation, agreed I should see a specialist, and referred me to a no-cost program. Luckily, my lump turned out to be normal breast tissue.
There’s plenty more. Visit PlannedParenthoodSavedMe.tumblr.com for more stories and/or to submit your own story.
The Daily Show Tells Florida Legislators: "I Think I’m Gonna Need You to Pee into This Cup"
01 day ago
Last night, The Daily Show featured an interview with ACLU of Florida client Luis Lebron, a single father and full-time student who cares for his disabled mother. Luis, a Navy veteran, took a stand for his constitutional rights after learning the state of Florida wanted to force him to take a drug test before he could receive temporary cash assistance from the state. Fortunately, Florida’s drug testing program for welfare applicants has since been put on hold. Last night’s show highlighted the hypocrisy and unfairness of forcing people in need of assistance to submit to such an invasive search, but not Florida politicians whose salaries also rely on taxpayer dollars.
When Luis found out that in order to qualify for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) he would need to take a drug test, he reached out to the ACLU of Florida for help. He refused to take the test because, as he said, Florida’s drug testing program is “casting a cloud over a population of people with no factual evidence.”
In fact, there is some evidence — but unfortunately for Gov. Rick Scott and other Florida lawmakers pushing this legislation, the evidence flies in the face of their rationale for the program, which was in place for several months before being enjoined by a federal court last October. During that time,only two percent of Florida TANF applicants tested positive for drug use — compared to nine percent of Floridians in the general population that are estimated to use drugs. So not only did Florida pass and implement an unconstitutional law, it passed a law that was a solution in search of a problem, cost the state more money than it saved, and violated the privacy of Floridians who had done nothing wrong. As the Daily Show’s Aasif Mandvi quipped last night, “humiliation for the 98 percent that pass is a small price to pay for a program that has saved Floridians negative $200,000.”
State legislatures around the country are now debating similar laws that would require people to pass a drug test before receiving benefits. They would all do well to take a tip from Luis Lebron and the state of Florida: poor people are not criminals, and treating them as such is unconstitutional, unfair and a waste of money.
Learn more about drug testing: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
The Daily Show Tells Florida Legislators: "I Think I’m Gonna Need You to Pee into This Cup"
01 day ago
Last night, The Daily Show featured an interview with ACLU of Florida client Luis Lebron, a single father and full-time student who cares for his disabled mother. Luis, a Navy veteran, took a stand for his constitutional rights after learning the state of Florida wanted to force him to take a drug test before he could receive temporary cash assistance from the state. Fortunately, Florida’s drug testing program for welfare applicants has since been put on hold. Last night’s show highlighted the hypocrisy and unfairness of forcing people in need of assistance to submit to such an invasive search, but not Florida politicians whose salaries also rely on taxpayer dollars.
When Luis found out that in order to qualify for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) he would need to take a drug test, he reached out to the ACLU of Florida for help. He refused to take the test because, as he said, Florida’s drug testing program is “casting a cloud over a population of people with no factual evidence.”
In fact, there is some evidence — but unfortunately for Gov. Rick Scott and other Florida lawmakers pushing this legislation, the evidence flies in the face of their rationale for the program, which was in place for several months before being enjoined by a federal court last October. During that time,only two percent of Florida TANF applicants tested positive for drug use — compared to nine percent of Floridians in the general population that are estimated to use drugs. So not only did Florida pass and implement an unconstitutional law, it passed a law that was a solution in search of a problem, cost the state more money than it saved, and violated the privacy of Floridians who had done nothing wrong. As the Daily Show’s Aasif Mandvi quipped last night, “humiliation for the 98 percent that pass is a small price to pay for a program that has saved Floridians negative $200,000.”
State legislatures around the country are now debating similar laws that would require people to pass a drug test before receiving benefits. They would all do well to take a tip from Luis Lebron and the state of Florida: poor people are not criminals, and treating them as such is unconstitutional, unfair and a waste of money.
Learn more about drug testing: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.