Laura Schauer Ives, Dr. Katherine Morris, Dr. Aroop Mangalik, Kathryn Tucker

New Mexico Doctors, Compassion & Choices, ACLU of New Mexico

Seek Ruling That Physicians Can Provide Aid In Dying

ALBUQUERQUE, NM – Two prominent Albuquerque physicians, Dr. Katherine Morris and Dr. Aroop Mangalik, the national nonprofit Compassion & Choices and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico filed a lawsuit today to clarify the ability of mentally competent, terminally ill patients to obtain aid in dying from their physician if they find their dying process unbearable. The doctors are asking the court to declare that physicians who provide a prescription for medication to a mentally competent terminally ill patient, which the patient could consume to bring about a peaceful death, would not be subject to criminal prosecution under existing New Mexico law, which makes a crime of assisting another to ‘commit suicide.’ The choice of a dying patient for a peaceful death is no kind of ‘suicide,’ the physicians’ lawsuit asserts, and the physician does not assist such a patient in ‘committing suicide.’ Laura Schauer Ives, managing attorney for the ACLU of New Mexico, and Compassion & Choices Director of Legal Services Kathryn Tucker represent the physicians.

Dr. Morris, a surgical oncologist, a cancer researcher and an assistant professor of medicine, told a news conference outside the Second Judicial District Court in Albuquerque, “A couple of years ago a patient of mine asked me for aid in dying, and because she lived in a state where it was already affirmatively legal I had no fear of supporting her request. But it was a hard decision. I had voted for the law twice. I was raised to respect people’s autonomy and decisions. But it was hard when a lovely woman to whom I was very attached asked for it. I wrote her a prescription, she got medication and she held onto it for a long time. After many months of good times and hard times, she decided – she decided – not to endure any further suffering. I hope the court will rule that patients in New Mexico have the same autonomy over their end-of-life choices.”

Dr. Aroop Mangalik is a practicing oncologist, as well as a clinical researcher in internal medicine and hematology-oncology and a professor of medicine. He provides primary care to adults, some of whom are terminally ill. Dr. Mangalik stated at the press conference, “Without honesty and compassion, too many patients suffer needlessly in the last few weeks of their life. No one should force a dying person to suffer. Doctors already provide treatments for terminally ill patients that are intended to ease suffering, but which we know may advance the time of death. When doctors write prescriptions for aid in dying in response to patients’ requests, their intention is primarily to provide patients with comfort and control.”

Ms. Tucker told the news conference, “This case is a statutory construction case: the court is asked to determine the scope of a statute. We expect that this case can move quickly, as it raises a question of law that the court should be able to resolve in a relatively short time. If the court rules in the plaintiffs’ favor, and holds that aid in dying is not prohibited by New Mexico law, physicians in New Mexico will be able to provide this intervention without fear of sanction.”

Ms. Ives explained the constitutional claims that arise, if the court should find that the state’s statute against “assisting suicide” does reach the medical practice of aid in dying. “In its vagueness, and by violating the private physician-patient relationship, the statute applied to aid in dying would deny the due process of law the constitution guarantees. It would deny doctors equal protection of the laws. It would deprive doctors of the right to free speech. And by denying the decision-making power of New Mexico citizens in one of the most intimate and fundamental areas of their lives – the way they confront the end of their lives – it would deprive them of their inherent and inalienable rights.”

“I’m here today, first and foremost,” said Dr. Morris, “because this is an issue that doesn’t get talked about at all or only in sound bites. As a society our persistent refusal to face death is hurting us. But I also am here for selfish reasons. New Mexico is my home and this is an option I would want. I don’t know if I would take it, but I want the right.”

The lawsuit was filed in the Second Judicial District Court. The legal complaint may be viewed here: Morris v. NM

###

Overview

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico Foundation (ACLU-NM) seeks a full-time Policy Advocate to join the staff of the Regional Center for Border Rights (RCBR) in Las Cruces, NM. The RCBR primarily addresses civil and human rights violations that stem from immigration policies in the border region. It also supports the ACLU-NM’s broader mission of defending general civil liberties, from free speech, to religious liberty, to equality for same-sex couples, among many other issues.

The Policy Advocate’s primary responsibility is to develop and implement advocacy strategies to improve border enforcement policies and practices. The position also supports the ACLU-NM’s broader civil liberties mission. The Policy Advocate’s work involves data gathering and research; forming alliances with strategic partners; mobilizing constituent support; lobbying government officials and legislative bodies; and representing the ACLU‐NM in public forums.

Founded in 1962, the ACLU-NM is a not-for-profit, nonpartisan organization which uses legal, legislative and public education approaches to protect and promote individual rights and freedoms, including free speech, racial justice, privacy, religious liberty, reproductive rights, LGBT rights, and more. The ACLU-NM is an affiliate of the national ACLU, the leading defender of civil liberties guaranteed by our nation’s Bill of Rights. The ACLU-NM has offices in Albuquerque and Las Cruces and a staff of 14 people. It has 5,000 members across the state and an annual budget of $1.3 million.

The Policy Advocate works under the supervision of the Director of the Regional Center for Border Rights and in close collaboration with the ACLU-NM’s legal, development, policy advocacy and communications staff.

Responsibilities

• Develop and implement advocacy strategies to effect change by local, state and federal policymakers on immigration and border enforcement and other civil liberties issues.  This includes representing the RCBR in direct conversations with policymakers, such as state legislators, Congressional delegates, White House staff, etc.
• Monitor border enforcement developments that have potential consequences for civil liberties. This includes policy research and analysis designed to promote change in administrative agencies and local policymaking.
• Monitor conditions of confinement in immigrant detention facilities and ensure due process for immigrant detainees.
• Collaborate with other ACLU-NM staff and other ACLU offices to protect and advance civil liberties. This includes responding to requests for information and assistance from ACLU affiliates and national offices on immigration and border-related policy.
• Monitor and analyze local, state, and federal legislation, regulations, and other policies related to the civil rights of border and immigrant communities.
• Research, write and edit policy and advocacy materials, including public policy reports, issue briefs, letters, press statements, opinion editorials, action alerts, and talking points related to ACLU’s policy work.
• Assist in ongoing outreach activities to monitor civil and human rights in communities in southern New Mexico, including support of the legal team’s litigation efforts, drafting public records requests and analyzing responses.
• Build and nurture effective multi-organizational coalitions and alliances on priority issues and campaigns; this may include work to build grassroots capacity in support of legislative and policy priorities.
• Community outreach and public speaking, including representing ACLU positions to policy- and lawmaking bodies, the media, and the general public.
• Perform work on other projects as needed.

Qualifications

• Demonstrated commitment to the ACLU mission and principles of the ACLU and a broad range of civil liberties and civil rights issues, particularly individual liberties, racial justice, criminal justice, and immigration.
• A Bachelor’s degree; a JD, social work or other advanced degree is preferred but not required.
• At least 3 years of relevant work experience in political, policy, legal, or government settings. Experience with constitutional issues, immigration detention, legislation and community outreach is preferred.
• Ability to keep organized in a fast-paced environment, to manage several projects simultaneously, and to adjust to frequently changing demands.
• Demonstrated commitment to work in diverse communities; bilingual Spanish/English required.
• Excellent research and analytic skills.
• Excellent interpersonal and communication skills including the ability to write and speak persuasively to diverse audiences, including lawyers, advocates, funders, and opinion leaders.
• Ability to analyze and articulate legal concepts and other complex issues and to communicate them to the public; a “quick study” on a dynamic array of issues.
• A commitment to diversity; a personal approach that values the individual and respects differences of race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ability and socioeconomic circumstance.
• Creative, result-oriented, self-starting, and willing to learn.
• A team player that inspires collaboration and functions decisively; flexible and well organized.
• Emotionally mature and self‐confident, with a sense of humor in order to maintain balance and perspective.
• Proficiency in Microsoft PowerPoint, Excel, Word, and Outlook, and ability to prepare graphic presentations and conduct internet research.
• Able to work evenings and weekends and travel when necessary.

Compensation and Benefits

Salary based on experience. Excellent benefits include paid vacation, medical and dental insurance, 401k plan, life and long‐term disability insurance, and generous paid holidays.

To Apply

Please send a letter of interest (with salary requirements), resume, and three references by email to HR@aclu-nm.org  Please indicate in your letter of interest where you learned of this career opportunity.  Applications will be accepted until the position is filled but preference will be given to applications received by March 24, 2012.

The ACLU-NM is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer and encourages applications from all qualified individuals including women, people of color, persons with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals.

ACLU Files Discrimination Lawsuit Against Bureau of Indian Education School

Vicki Hicks and her daughter Shantelle, 15.

GALLUP, N.M. – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Mexico filed a lawsuit today on behalf of Shantelle Hicks, 15, who was initially kicked out of middle school and then publicly humiliated at an assembly by the school director and another staff member because she was pregnant.

The complaint alleges that school administrators violated Hicks’ constitutional right to equal protection under the law, Title IX’s prohibitions against sex and pregnancy discrimination and violations of her right to privacy.

“It was so embarrassing to have all the other kids staring at me as I walked into the gymnasium,” said Hicks. “I didn’t want the whole school to know I was pregnant because it’s not their business, and it wasn’t right for my teachers to single me out.”

Hicks attends Wingate Elementary School, a Bureau of Indian Affairs boarding school, and is currently in the eighth grade. She discovered she was pregnant approximately three weeks before the assembly, and she and her mother told the director of the middle school and two other staff members. They initially responded by kicking her out of school. The ACLU of New Mexico sent a demand letter to the school, informing them that it is illegal to deny a student access to education because of pregnancy status. Wingate readmitted Hicks after four missed days of instruction.

Approximately two weeks later the director of the middle school and another staff member had Hicks stand before the entire middle school at an assembly and announced that she was pregnant. Until that point, no one other than Hicks’ sister knew that she was pregnant.

“Too often, pregnant students face significant barriers or outright discrimination in school,” said Galen Sherwin, staff attorney with the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. “Instead, schools should give pregnant and parenting students the support they need to help them succeed, for both themselves and for their children.”

“The ACLU’s lawsuit seeks damages and declaratory relief for violations of Hicks’ constitutional right to equal protection under the law and of Title IX prohibitions against sex and pregnancy discrimination in education.”

“We believe that Wingate intentionally humiliated Shantelle in retaliation for her refusal to leave the school,” said ACLU of New Mexico cooperating attorney Barry Klopfer. “It is outrageous that educators would subject a young woman in their care to such cruelty. Adopting one’s moral convictions from the Scarlet Letter is completely inappropriate and fails to take into account a child’s educational needs.”

Lawyers on this case include Klopfer, Alexandra Freedman Smith, Laura Schauer Ives and Maureen Sanders of the ACLU of New Mexico; and Sherwin and Lenora Lapidus of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project.

Read the full legal complaint: Hicks Complaint.

CONTACT:

Micah McCoy, ACLU of New Mexico, (505) 266-5915 x1003 or mmccoy@aclu-nm.org

Robyn Shepherd, ACLU national, (212) 519-7829 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org

©jorndorf/roughshelter.com

Yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Bloomfield, NM citizens who seek the removal of the Ten Commandments monument prominently displayed on the city hall lawn. The lawsuit alleges that the monument is a government endorsement of religion and violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as the New Mexico State Constitution.

“Individuals, religious communities, and religious associations should be free to post the Ten Commandments as they wish, and the ACLU will defend their right to do so,” said ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson. “But the government should not decide which religious doctrines it favors and then post them on government property. Government should stay out of the business of religion and avoid choosing some religious beliefs over others.”

Beginning in 2007, Bloomfield political leaders began a campaign to circumvent the laws that prohibit government sponsored religious monuments. The city council, on the instigation of then councilor Kevin Mauzy, adopted a resolution allowing for private donation of a Ten Commandments monument to be displayed on the city hall lawn. In July 2011, despite voiced objections from concerned community members, former city councilor Mauzy and his associates erected a large monument featuring the Ten Commandments near the entrance to city hall. On July 4^th, Mauzy presided over a religious and patriotic themed dedication ceremony.

In the complaint, the ACLU of New Mexico shows that the City of Bloomfield accorded preferential treatment to the monument’s sponsors, disregarding many city ordinances and policy requirements that would regulate the monument’s installation. Public records requests also reveal that Mauzy sought and received legal advice on the monument from the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization that often advocates for the merging of government and religion.

“The problem when government endorses religion is that it inevitably favors one set of beliefs to the disregard of all others,” said ACLU Managing Attorney Laura Schauer Ives. “In this case, Bloomfield has concluded that the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments is superior to the Catholic and Jewish versions. Government shouldn’t put itself in the position of having to discriminate in that way. By staying out of matters of faith, Government gives all religions an equal chance to thrive in our country. That was the purpose of the religious liberty clauses in the First Amendment.”

As recently as 2009, the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals—which governs New Mexico—ordered Haskell County, Oklahoma to remove a similar Ten Commandments monument from the county courthouse grounds, saying that a “reasonable observer” would conclude that the monument was an endorsement of religion. The county’s defense of the monument cost local taxpayers $200,000 in legal fees.

Read the ACLU of New Mexico’s full legal complaint: Felix v. Bloomfield (PDF).

###

Court says 2008 law banning registered sex offenders from all public libraries violates First Amendment.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 20, 2012

CONTACT: Micah McCoy, (505) 266-5915 x1003 or mmccoy@aclu-nm.org

ALBUQUERQUE, NM – Today, in a First Amendment lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico, the United States 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Albuquerque’s ban on sex offenders from accessing the city’s public libraries is unconstitutional. This decision affirmed the U.S. District Court of New Mexico’s ruling that the ban infringed too broadly upon the fundamental First Amendment right to receive information.

“The Tenth Circuit is right in affirming that the City of Albuquerque cannot categorically exclude an entire group of people from a constitutionally protected space,” said ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson. “People have a First Amendment right to receive information in public libraries and the government needs to explicitly justify its actions if it’s going to infringe on such a fundamental right.”

The 10^th Circuit found that, “The First Amendment includes a fundamental right to receive information. By prohibiting registered sex offenders for accessing the City’s public libraries, the City’s ban precludes these individuals from exercising this right in a particular government forum.” The Court further concluded that the City of Albuquerque did not show proper justification for the overly broad and overly restrictive policy.

“When the government wants to restrict rights as fundamental as those protected under the First Amendment, the bar for justification is set very high,” said ACLU-NM Cooperating Attorney Brendan Egan. “We do not believe the City of Albuquerque met that obligation, and we are encouraged that one of the highest courts in the nation agrees.”

Read the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals decision here: DOE_OPINION – AFFIRMED

###