News & Commentary

I've come to accept that the issues I care about will be misrepresented or ignored by the larger media outlets.  And it's come to pass that I only really trust a few sources to give an honest assessment of what is going on, why, and the consequences. Call me naive, but years ago The New York Times was one of them.  I've since become more adept at spotting how an issue is being framed and turn a cold eye to the sources cited.  But like it or not, and despite reports that print media is dying, the NYT still sets the standard for news you will read, hear and see throughout the day. Despite this cynicism, an Op-Ed piece in the Sunday New York Times made me spill my latte. The author, Michael Seringhaus, suggests that every person in the United States should be required to submit their DNA for a national law enforcement database.  The benefit of such a program is that police would be able to solve more crimes (no statistical proof is provided) and by sampling everyone it would be fair, since the DNA samples now on file are disproportionately black and Hispanic individuals. Call it the CSI effect, the entertainment driven illusion that every crime can be solved in the high tech forensic lab of your local police department. It's an absurd idea.  But one that might be lurking in the not so distant future.  We need to keep our radar up on this and think about what access law enforcement has to our DNA and how such a database could easily be constructed. And who is Michael Seringhaus, you ask?  A prominent criminologist?  An expert in data collection and application? No, he's a student at Yale Law School.  

Please take a moment to do this important action.   Thanks for all that you do, Alysia, Brianna, Claire, Edward, Katy, Shenna, Zach

It&r

 In an interview with the New York Times Magazine last summer, which I have referenced in past blogs, Justice Ginsberg stated: “Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.”   Justice Ginsberg’s observation has become particularly noticeable in the last year as reproductive rights have been volleyedbetween the House and Senate health care reform bills. Furthermore, her comment that “this hasn’t been said more often” has proven accurate throughout the debate. However, Ezra Klein, writer for The Washington Post has reported that the disparate impact of the abortion language based on womens’ financial means since November. He wrote:   “Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment did not make abortion illegal. And it did not block the federal government from subsidizing abortion. All it did was block it from subsidizing abortion for poorer women.”   Klein reminds us today that: “the Stupak amendment is as much about class as it is about choice. Imagine if Stupak attempted to expand his campaign to the coverage employed women receive. It would, after all, be the same principle: Federal policy should not subsidize insurance that offers abortion coverage. But it wouldn't have a chance. That group is too large and too affluent and too politically powerful for Congress to dare to touch its access to reproductive services. But the poorer women who will be using subsidies on the exchange are a much easier target.”    I strongly recommend reading Ezra Klein’s two short articles for more context on the relationship between choice and class here and here.   Unfortunately, Congress and the White House have not demonstrated any interest in correcting this disparity. Obama has stated that health care reform should be “abortion-neutral”. He says that “this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill”. Yet abortions are a legal form of health care, health care has never been abortion neutral (as Klein and Justice Ginsberg note above), and “the status quo” discriminates against poorer women. It is unacceptable.   And yet it appears that the Nelson language in the Senate health care bill may become law in the coming week or two. The “status quo” will persevere, certainly for the worse, especially for low income women. We don’t have to be quiet about it. Tell Congress that both the Nelson language and Stupak amendment are unacceptable.  

The

Yesterday, the Legislature's Committee on Health and Human Services held a public hearing on LD 1811, An Act to Amend the Maine Medical Marijuana Act.     The Act proposes changes to the law passed by about 60% of Maine voters this past November, which opened the door for medical marijuana dispensaries in our state. What those who crafted and voted for the bill did NOT intend, was for the creation of dispensaries to lead to the state infringing on the rights of medical marjijuana patients and caregivers.  LD 1811, however, does just that.  LD 1811 creates blanket approval for the Department of Health and Human Services to enter and "assess" the home of a patient who has chosen to grow for themself, or their caregiver upon 24-hour notice - even if there is no reason to believe anyone is in danger or breaking the law.  Maine's previous medical marijuana law, which has been on the books for over 10 years, had no such provision.   and there is no evidence that the absence of "assessments" created problems warranting unprovoked governmental invasion of personal privacy. Why create such an invasive law when there is no evidence that it is needed to protect the health, welfare or safety of Mainers?  The answer:  We shouldn't!  This change to the law should be seen by the Committee and the legislature for what it is - unnecessary and harmful.  It will only serve to perpetuate misplaced stereotypes about patients who use marijuana and those who help care for them and create distrust and discomfort for legitimate patients and caregivers thinking of registering with the state.   It is understandable and justifiable to permit assessments of dispensaries.  They are, after all, a business open to the public and expected to be subject to inspection and oversight.  In contrast, to permit the government to enter the private home of an approved patient or caregiver, with no suspicion whatsoever of wrongdoing, is unconscionable.    Now - to help illustrate just how ridiculous this is, I will give an example: Many Maine communities have been hit hard by prescription opioid addiction (OxyContin, etc.).  Yet, despite the potential for grave harm known to be associated with these drugs, no one would think of telling a cancer patient using OxyContin that the government is going to come to their house and count their pills to make sure they weren't taking more than they were supposed to or selling them on the street.   That's because even though there may be a public policy argument (preventing overdose, concerns of public health, etc.), the privacy costs are far too great.    Medical marijuana patients and the citizen caregivers who help care for them deserve to be treated with as much dignity and respect for their privacy as any other citizen not suspected of wrongdoing.  This means protecting them from unwarranted, unprovoked intrusions by government agents. Tell your legislator to respect the Fourth Amendment rights of seriously ill patients and the loved ones who care for them... You can also:

To that end, I'm writing about this national day of appreciation the day after the actual day. Over the weekend I visited my undergraduate campus for the first time in years - a campus dedicated to educating women. I was reminded of the outdoor steps up a hill that are designed for a woman's body to run up. I remembered sitting in class with many other women and feeling empowered to speak as often and as loud as I wanted.I remembered my first visit to the health center where information on my reproductive health and choices was readily available - information I did not receive while attending a Maine public high school.  I remembered the nurse practitioner that asked me if I knew how to use condoms, and then insisted on showing me just to be safe.  She explained other methods of birth control, and options in the event that birth control failed. It's in this spirit that I want to acknowledge and appreciate abortion providers, who put their lives on the line for women the world over, so that we may exercise our reproductive freedom.  I'm grateful for the Maine providers, of whom there are several.  I'm also mindful of the states where abortion providers are few and far between.  When I was in Mississippi five years ago, I knew there was only one abortion provider in Jackson, meaning some women have to travel hours for abortion services.  For some women, it made more sense to travel north to Memphis.  For me and my colleagues, the costs of a trip to Memphis and the fee for services was feasible. For some of the young women I worked with, just travel out of state was an impossibility. So here's to all the abortion providers out there. Thanks for all that you do for women. You can support efforts to ensure abortion access by joining the ACLU here.  Read the ACLU's blog on the Day of Appreciation here.

I've blogged before about how the cell phone is also a tracking device.  And the reality is that law enforcement is taking full advantage of the built-in GPS capability to monitor your movements.  Without probable cause.  The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals can change this if they rule in favor of the ACLU and privacy advocates.