Dear Friend of Liberty, I’m writing you today to ask you to stand up to an organization that is willing to go to any length to take away a woman’s right to safe, legal abortion care here in New Mexico. I’m talking about Kansas-based “Operation Rescue,” a group of extremists with a track record of violence, harassment and intimidation towards abortion providers and women seeking abortions.Dear friend of liberty,
Their main target was once Kansas late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. Dr. Tiller is now dead, murdered as he ushered Sunday worship at his church, and Operation Rescue followed Tiller’s surviving associates to Albuquerque where they relocated to continue providing late-term abortion care to women in need.
Stand up for women’s right to access reproductive health care and keep Operation Rescue’s extremist agenda out of New Mexico.
Operation Rescue recently made headlines in Albuquerque when they released recordings of 9-1-1 calls made from two health clinics where abortions are performed and demanded that the New Mexico Medical Board investigate several local physicians for alleged “unsafe” practices.
This is not a new tactic for Operation Rescue. The organization has used bogus complaints to medical boards in several other states in an attempt to harass and intimidate doctors. The person responsible for most of these complaints is Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue’s Senior Policy Advisor, who served two years in U.S. federal prison for conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic in 1987.
In 2009, Sullenger lied about and then later admitted to feeding information regarding the whereabouts of Dr. Tiller to an anti-choice extremist named Scott Roeder. On Sunday, May 31, 2009, Roeder walked into the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas and shot and killed Dr. Tiller.
Making repeated complaints to the medical board and demanding endless investigations of abortion providers is the same strategy Operation Rescue used in Kansas to harass Dr. Tiller before he was murdered. Now Operation Rescue is using the same strategy here in New Mexico.
This has a serious chilling effect on abortion providers because time and expense required to hire attorneys, respond to an unending stream of subpoenas, and repeatedly appear before the medical board makes it extremely difficult to run a medical practice. And that is exactly what Operation Rescue is counting on.
Help keep our medical board from being hijacked by anti-choice extremists. Remind the Executive Director of the NM Medical Board that they should make decisions based on medicine – not the political agendas of out-of-state extremists.
Sincerely,
Peter Simonson
Executive Director

Date

Friday, November 18, 2011 - 11:40am

Featured image

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

Style

Standard with sidebar

Micah McCoy, Communications Specialist


When I checked the news on last night before I went to bed my jaw dropped.
"Whoa!"
The 2011 voting results were in, and they spelled major victories for civil libertarians across the nation. Here are the highlights:

1) Mississippi "Personhood" Amendment defeated

On Tuesday Mississippi voters soundly rejected a amendment to the state constitution that would define a fertilized egg as a person with all the rights thereof. This is of course a fantastically absurd, really bad, terrible idea. For many reasons.
By this definition, certain forms of birth control could be considered murder. For instance, the Intrauterine Device (IUD) prevents pregnancy by keeping fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterine wall. So under the so-called "personhood" amendment should women with IUDs be charged as serial killers? What about fertility doctors who implant several fertilized eggs and then destroy all but the most viable?
Bottom line: anti-choice extremists have no business forcing their own religious world view on the rest of the population. Women have the right to make private reproductive heathcare choices in consultation with their doctor. That's why Mississipians voted down this ballot measure by an overwhelming 16 point margin.

2) Russell Pierce, architect of SB 1070, recalled in Arizona

I'll preface this with a reminder that the ACLU does not endorse or oppose political candidates. We do, however, weigh in on the policy issues they are responsible for. Russell Pearce, Senate Majority leader in Arizona, is best known as the architect of the unfair, discriminatory "Show me your papers" law passed in Arizona last year. This law would require law enforcement officials in Arizona to investigate the immigration status of anyone they "suspected" of being in the country without the proper documents. Essentially, the law is a mandate for state-sponsored racial profiling.
Yesterday, Arizona voters recalled Senator Pearce, replacing him with another Republican with a more mainstream stance on immigration issues. This recall move was widely seen as a referendum on last year's unconstitutional immigration law.
Bottom line: state and local law enforcement should not be responsible for enforcing federal immigration law. It hurts our communities, destroys trust in law enforcement and leads to racial profiling of people who look or sound "foreign." Arizona voters sent a strong message yesterday, repudiating anti-immigrant scapegoating.

3) Same day voter registration stays in Maine

In a bald-faced move to suppress certain groups of voters, the Maine Legislature passed a law in the last legislative session that eliminated election day voter registration. Their excuse for passing this vote-suppressing law will be familiar to New Mexicans--voter fraud! Rampant, pervasive voter fraud!
In Maine, like New Mexico, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
Yesterday, Maine voters saw through the legislature's political move and overwhelmingly rejected the new law with 59 percent of the vote.
Bottom line: Our leaders shouldn't play politics with the foundation of our democracy, our elections system.

Bottom line-bottom line?

When civil libertarians organize together and stand up for the Constitution, there is no limit to what we can overcome--and ACLU members played a big role. The ACLU of Mississippi was part of the coalition that helped defeat the "personhood"amendment, the ACLU of Maine actively organized to overturn the voter-suppressing repeal of election day registration, and the ACLU of Arizona filed a lawsuit blocking key parts of the "Show me your papers law."
So keep standing up for liberty with the ACLU. It's hard work, but days like yesterday remind us what we're fighting for.
 

Date

Wednesday, November 9, 2011 - 3:06pm

Featured image

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

Style

Standard with sidebar
Can my free speech be restricted because of what I say—even if it is controversial?
No. The First Amendment prohibits restrictions based on the content of speech. However, this does not mean that the Constitution completely protects all types of free speech activity in every circumstance. Police and government officials are allowed to place certain nondiscriminatory and narrowly drawn "time, place and manner" restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights. Any such restrictions must apply to all speech regardless of its point of view.
 
Where can I engage in free speech activity?
Generally, all types of expression are constitutionally protected in traditional "public forums" such as streets, sidewalks and parks. In addition, your speech activity may be permitted to take place at other public locations that the government has opened up to similar speech activities, such as the plazas in front of government buildings.
What about free speech activity on private property?
The general rule is that the owners of private property may set rules limiting your free speech. If you disobey the property owner's rules, they can order you off their property (and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply).
Do I need a permit before I engage in free speech activity?
Not usually. However, certain types of events require permits. Generally, these events are:
  • A march or parade that does not stay on the sidewalk, and other events that require blocking traffic or street closure
  • A large rally requiring the use of sound amplifying devices; or
  • A rally at certain designated parks or plazas
Many permit procedures require that the application be filed several weeks in advance of the event. However, the First Amendment prohibits such an advance notice requirement from being used to prevent rallies or demonstrations that are rapid responses to unforeseeable and recent events. Also, many permit ordinances give a lot of discretion to the police or city officials to impose conditions on the event, such as the route of a march or the sound levels of amplification equipment. Such restrictions may violate the First Amendment if they are unnecessary for traffic control or public safety, or if they interfere significantly with effective communication with the intended audience. A permit cannot be denied because the event is controversial or will express unpopular views.
Specific problems
If organizers have not obtained a permit, where can a march take place?
If marchers stay on the sidewalks and obey traffic and pedestrian signals, their activity is constitutionally protected even without a permit. Marchers may be required to allow enough space on the sidewalk for normal pedestrian traffic and may not maliciously obstruct or detain passers-by.
May I distribute leaflets and other literature on public sidewalks?
Yes. You may approach pedestrians on public sidewalks with leaflets, newspapers, petitions and solicitations for donations without a permit. Tables may also be set up on sidewalks for these purposes if sufficient room is left for pedestrians to pass. These types of free speech activities are legal as long as entrances to buildings are not blocked and passers-by are not physically and maliciously detained. However, a permit may be required to set up a table.
Do I have a right to picket on public sidewalks?
Yes, and this is also an activity for which a permit is not required. However, picketing must be done in an orderly, non-disruptive fashion so that pedestrians can pass by and entrances to buildings are not blocked.
Can government impose a financial charge on exercising free speech rights?
Some local governments have required a fee as a condition of exercising free speech rights, such as application fees, security deposits for clean-up, or charges to cover overtime police costs. Charges that cover actual administrative costs have been permitted by some courts. However, if the costs are greater because an event is controversial (or a hostile crowd is expected)—such as requiring a large insurance policy—then the courts will not permit it. Also, regulations with financial requirements should include a waiver for groups that cannot afford the charge, so that even grassroots organizations can exercise their free speech rights. Therefore, a group without significant financial resources should not be prevented from engaging in a march simply because it cannot afford the charges the City would like to impose.
Do counter-demonstrators have free speech rights?
Yes. Although counter-demonstrators should not be allowed to physically disrupt the event they are protesting, they do have the right to be present and to voice their displeasure. Police are permitted to keep two antagonistic groups separated but should allow them to be within the general vicinity of one another.
Does it matter if other speech activities have taken place at the same location?
Yes. The government cannot discriminate against activities because of the controversial content of the message. Thus, if you can show that similar events to yours have been permitted in the past (such as a Veterans or Memorial Day parade), then that is an indication that the government is involved in selective enforcement if they are not granting you a permit.
What other types of free speech activity are constitutionally protected?
The First Amendment covers all forms of communication including music, theater, film and dance. The Constitution also protects actions that symbolically express a viewpoint. Examples of these symbolic forms of speech include wearing masks and costumes or holding a candlelight vigil. However, symbolic acts and civil disobedience that involve illegal conduct may be outside the realm of constitutional protections and can sometimes lead to arrest and conviction. Therefore, while sitting in a road may be expressing a political opinion, the act of blocking traffic may lead to criminal punishment.
What should I do if my rights are being violated by a police officer?
It rarely does any good to argue with a street patrol officer. Ask to talk to a supervisor and explain your position to him or her. Point out that you are not disrupting anyone else's activity and that the First Amendment protects your actions. If you do not obey an officer, you might be arrested and taken from the scene. You should not be convicted if a court concludes that your First Amendment rights have been violated.
Download a pdf copy.

Date

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 1:44pm

Featured image

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Free Speech

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU of New Mexico RSS