Extreme viagra sex stories

Gary C. Mitchell, ACLU-NM Board President

At a time when unemployment is high and families are struggling, Representative Steve Pearce (NM-2) picks a callous moment to create unnecessary hurdles for Americans to obtain needed public benefits.

Recently, Rep. Pearce filed H.R. 3615 and H.R. 3722, bills that would require people to submit to arbitrary drug testing as a condition of receiving unemployment benefits and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Soon after, county commissioners here in Lincoln County, where I reside, went so far as to adopt a resolution in support of these wrong-headed bills. Aside from being mean-spirited and unduly suspicious of people who have fallen on hard times, these bills are almost certainly unconstitutional.

Just last fall, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of U.S. Navy veteran Luis Lebron, who rightly refuses to accept warrantless and suspicionless government seizure of his bodily fluids under the state law that requires drug testing of welfare applicants. Lebron, 35, is a single father to his four-year-old son, takes care of his mentally disabled mother, and is trying to finish his college degree. He does not take illegal substances, but the Florida “pee in this cup” law treats him like a criminal just because he needs government assistance while he works to build a better life for his family.

Louis Lebron, 35-year-old U.S. Navy Veteran

In October, a federal judge temporary blocked the Florida law, stating that “The constitutional rights of a class of citizens are at stake.” Another ACLU lawsuit overturned a similar law in Michigan in 2006.

We know from a 1996 study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism that welfare recipients are no more likely to use illegal drugs than other Americans. According to drug testing data that was collected in Florida prior to the court’s ruling, only 2 percent of all applicants tested positive for illegal substances—far below the estimated national average of 8 percent. It is hard to imagine that, in light of these facts, any fair-minded American would support laws designed to humiliate and demonize the thousands of people like Lebron who need temporary assistance in these difficult times.

Making drug testing mandatory for seekers of unemployment and welfare benefits  accomplishes nothing but punishing people for being poor. As a public policy it has no basis in science or medicine, and serves only to further stigmatize and demean low-income families.

In fact, science and medical experts overwhelmingly oppose drug testing people who receive public assistance. Over twenty major medical and scientific organizations, including the Center for Addiction and Mental Health, the American Public Health Association and the National Association of Social Workers, Inc., officially opposed the implementation of Michigan’s scheme to drug test welfare recipients. It seems common sense that laws that address social and public health problems should be based on sound social and medical science—not prejudicial assumptions.

We can do better than this. It is true that some people in our nation struggle with substance abuse, but there are ways to approach this public health problem that are more effective, respectful and consistent with our values.

Just because a person is low-income, unlucky or unemployed does not make them somehow less deserving of the constitutional protections and basic human dignity. As Americans, we must stand up and  reject the impulse to treat our neighbors like criminal suspects when they fall on hard times. We must repudiate the idea that the government can violate the privacy of our bodies, simply to satisfy the mean-spirited political agenda of a cynical few.

Instead, we should treat our fellow citizens and our shared rights as if they matter.

Rep. Pearce would do well to remember that he represents all people in his district, not just the affluent, the fortunate and the powerful. Rather than spending his time picking on the poor, Rep. Pearce should busy himself supporting legislation that will help stabilize the economy and put the unemployed back to work.

Gary Mitchell

President of the Board of Directors for
the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico

Abortion among teenagers should be made less necessary, not more difficult and dangerous. Many young women are fortunate to have loving and supportive parents and these teens overwhelmingly include their parents in their reproductive health decisions. However, pregnant teenagers also come from troubled homes, where they risk physical and mental abuse by disclosing to one or both of their parents that they are pregnant or are terminating the pregnancy.  . New Mexico should be most concerned with protecting the most vulnerable teens—teens who have been or are at great risk of physical and sexual abuse from their families –from unwanted pregnancy. Mandating parental involvement does not solve the problems associated with teenage pregnancy. Instead it unnecessarily puts our most vulnerable youth at risk of harm

REQUIRING PARENTAL CONSENT/NOTIFICATION IS UNNECESSARY

• Most parents are already involved in a teen’s decision to terminate a pregnancy.ⁱ Only 10% of all abortions are performed on minors and, of those, 7 out of 10 minors involve their parents.
• Laws mandating parental notice or consent actually harm the young women they purport to protect by increasing illegal and self-induced abortion, family violence, suicide, later abortions and unwanted childbirth.

REQUIRING PARENTAL CONSENT/NOTIFICATION IS DANGEROUS

• Over half of formerly-abused pregnant teens report assaults during their pregnancy, most often by a family member. ii 67% of rapes reported to law enforcement in NM in 2009 were children.iii 48% of rape victims who reported to service providers in 2009 in New Mexico were children.^iv 88% of all rape victims know the offendersand 35% of these offenders are family members.

• The American Medical Association has noted that “[b]ecause the need for privacy may be compelling, minors may be driven to desperate measures to maintain the confidentiality of their pregnancies. They may run away from home, obtain a ‘back alley’ abortion, or resort to self-induced abortion. The desire to maintain secrecy has been one of the leading reasons for illegal abortion deaths since . . . 1973.^v
• Requiring parental consent or notification endangers young women by forcing some women to turn to illegal or self-induced abortion, to delay the procedure and increase the medical risk, or to bear a child against their will.^vi
• Teenage girls are more than 24 times more likely to die from childbirth than from first trimester legal abortions.vii
• Fewer than 60 percent of teen mothers graduate from high school by age 25—compared to 90 percent of those who postpone childbearing.viii Additionally, among African-American and Hispanic teens, those who postpone childbearing until age 20 are more likely to complete some college education.^ix
• Twenty-five percent of teen mothers live below the federal poverty line.^x Nearly 80 percent of teen mothers eventually go on welfare.^xi Teens that give birth also spend a greater length of time receiving public assistance— an average of three years longer than older mothers through age 35.^xii Teen mothers are also more likely to have lower family incomes later in life.^xiii

STATE AND FEDERAL LAW PROTECT YOUTH’S PRIVACY IN MAKING SIMILAR HEALTHCARE DECISIONS

• 50 states and the District of Columbia authorize minors to consent to the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections without parental consent.^xiv
• The United States Supreme Court recognized that confidential access to contraceptives for minors is protected by their constitutional right to privacy.^xv Federal law requires confidentiality for minors receiving family-planning services through publicly funded programs such as Title X and Medicaid.^xvi

JUDICIAL BYPASS PROVISIONS FAIL TO PROTECT YOUNG WOMEN

• Court proceedings are intimidating and difficult even for adults represented by capable attorneys. For young women without lawyers, seeking a court order is even more daunting and overwhelming and at times impossible.
• Requiring teens to go to court violates their privacy, particularly in rural areas.
• Court intervention delays healthcare, thus increasing the health risks associated with termination of a pregnancy.^xvii
• In states requiring court intervention, judges have denied young women the ability to terminate their pregnancies due to their personal biases and beliefs. xviii

GROUPS OPPOSING PARENTAL CONSENT/NOTIFICATION LEGISLATION:

• The American Medical Association states “Physicians should not feel or be compelled to require minors to involve their parents before deciding whether to undergo an abortion. . .”^xix
• The American Academy of Pediatrics also opposes parental-involvement laws.^xx
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) opposes requiring parental consent/ notification.
• The New Mexico Coalition for Choice, including the New Mexico Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Planned Parenthood New Mexico, ACLU-NM, the American Association of University Women (AAUW), the League of Women Voters, Women’s Policy Agenda, Young Women United.

ⁱ Stanley K. Henshaw & Kathryn Kost, Parental Involvement in Minors’ Abortion Decisions, 24 FAMILY PLANNING PERSPECTIVES 197, 199-200 (1992).

ⁱⁱ American Psychological Association, Parental Consent Laws for Adolescent Reproductive Health Care: What Does the Psychological Research Say? (Feb. 2000), citing A.B. Berenson, et al., Prevalence of Physical and Sexual Assault in Pregnant Adolescents, 13 J. OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH 466-69 (1992).

ⁱⁱⁱ Caponera, Betty, Ph.D., “Sex Crime Trends in New Mexico: An Analysis of Data from the New Mexico Interpersonal Violence Data Central Repository 2005-2009,” (July, 2010).

^iv Id.

^v Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs American Medical Association, Mandatory Parental Consent to Abortion, 269 JAMA 83 (1993).

^vi Advocates for Youth, Adolescent Childbearing and Education and Economic Attainment (Oct. 1995), at http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsadlchd.htm, citing Plotnick & Butler, Attitudes and Adolescent Nonmarital Childbearing: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, 6 J. OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH 470 (1991).

vii. Howard W. Ory, Mortality Associated with Fertility and Fertility Control: 1983, 15 FAMILY PLANNING PERSPECTIVES 59 (1983).

viii. Namkee Ahn, Teenage Childbearing and High School Completion: Accounting for Individual Heterogeneity, 26 FAMILY PLANNING PERSPECTIVES 18 (1994); Saul D. Hoffman, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, By the Numbers: The Public Costs of Teen Childbearing (October 2006).

^ix Advocates for Youth, Adolescent Childbearing and Education and Economic Attainment (Oct. 1995), at http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsadlchd.htm, citing Plotnick & Butler, Attitudes and Adolescent Nonmarital Childbearing: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, 6 J. OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH 470 (1991).

^x Advocates for Youth, Adolescent Childbearing and Education and Economic Attainment (Oct. 1995), at http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsadlchd.htm, citing Plotnick & Butler, Attitudes and Adolescent Nonmarital Childbearing: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, 6 J. OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH 470 (1991). citing Hoffman, et al., Reevaluating the Cost of Teenage Childbearing, 30 DEMOGRAPHY 1 (1993).

xi. Annie E. Casey Foundation, supra note 36.

^xii Saul D. Hoffman, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, By the Numbers: The Public Costs of Teen Childbearing (October 2006).

xiii

THE ALAN GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE, SEX AND AMERICA’S TEENAGERS 61-62 (New York: 1994); NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, RISKING THE FUTURE:

ADOLESCENT SEXUALITY, PREGNANCY, AND CHILDBEARING 130 (Cheryl D. Hayes ed., National Academy Press 1987).

^xiv The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Minors’ !ccess to STD Services, STATE POLICIES IN BRIEF, Oct. 1, 2008

^xv Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977).

^xvi New York v. Heckler, 719 F.2d 1191 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (striking down regulation requiring parental notification within 10 days of a Title X-funded family planning center providing prescription drugs or devices to unemancipated minor because such law conflicted with the program requirements of Title X); Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Dandoy, 810 F.2d 984 (10^th Cir. 1987) (holding state law requiring parental consent for Medicaid conflicted with federal law, which requires states participating in the Medicaid program to provide family planning assistance to eligible minors without parental involvement).

^xvii Hodgson v. Minnesota, 648 F.Supp. 756, 763-64 (D. Minn. 1986).

xviii Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 420 (1990) (requiring a bypass procedure for a two-parent notification statute); Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502, 510 (1990) (requiring bypass procedures for parental consent statutes).

^xix American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Mandatory Parental Consent to Abortion, CODE OF MEDICAL ETHICS 1996-1997 EDITION, § 2.015 (issued June 1994) (based on the report, Mandatory Parental Consent to Abortion (issued June 1992) 269 JAMA 82-86 (1993)).

^xx American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Adolescence, The Adolescent’s Right to Confidential Care When Considering Abortion, 97 PEDIATRICS 746 (1996).

Are you flying home for the holidays? Nervous about running the gauntlet of new high and low tech invasions of privacy at the airport? Well, the good folks at the ACLU of Massachusetts have put together a guide for the modern, airborne civil libertarian.

This is intended as a guide to procedures and technologies you may encounter in your travels. Much of the information here is based on DHS internal policy–not law–so it is subject to change and inconsistent application.  If you encounter different policies at the airport or feel your rights are being violated, please contact the ACLU.

Learn more about the TSA’s naked power grab at the ACLU Airport Security page.

extreme viagra sex stories Scanning

Many airports now require passengers to go through a scanner that uses advanced imaging technology. The scanner uses radiation to provide agents with an electronic image of your naked body. Although TSA says that the capability to store and transmit images of passengers’ bodies will not normally be activated, the agency requires this functionality in all the airport scanners it purchases.

These scanners are known by a variety of names:

• “Advanced Imaging Technology” (AIT) scanners
• “Whole Body Imaging” (WBI) scanners
• “full-body” scanners
• “naked” scanners

The scanners use “backscatter” or “millimeter wave” radiation to see through your clothes.  A TSA agent in another room will see an image of your body that could include a revealing look at your entire body, including breasts, genitals, buttocks, and external medical devices.

extreme viagra sex stories Option: Ask not to go through this scanner

You can tell the TSA agent that you do not wish to go through the scanner.  TSA agents are required under TSA policy to honor your request, but might try to encourage or pressure you to go through anyway.  To be as clear as possible, say, “I opt out.”  If you opt out, you will be subject to a “standard pat-down.”

You also have the right to opt your children out of the scan.

extreme viagra sex stories The “standard pat-down”

The TSA’s “standard pat-down procedure” is now a more invasive form of the pat-down search that you might have experienced in the past.

TSA says that during the new standard pat-down, a screener of the same sex will examine your head, shirt collar area, and waistband, and may use either the front or back of his or her hands to feel your body, including buttocks, around breasts, and between the legs, feeling up to the top of the thigh.  Women in tight skirts that don’t allow an agent to feel the thigh area may be asked to remove the skirt in a private screening area and will be given a gown or towel to put on.

extreme viagra sex stories Option:  Let TSA know about sensitive areas

Tell TSA agents about things such as injuries or conditions that could cause you pain if certain parts of your body are touched or pressed, as well as any medical devices that could be dislodged by a search, or any other reason that TSA agents should be careful when touching your body.

extreme viagra sex stories Option: Ask to be patted down in a private location

If you are uncomfortable being patted down in front of other passengers, you can request that TSA agents take you to a private area.

extreme viagra sex stories The “resolution pat-down”

If an “anomaly” is detected during the pat-down–or when you go through the AIT scanner–you will be subjected to a “resolution pat-down.”  TSA agents will take you to a private area and do a more intense pat-down, which includes using the front of the agent’s hands for a more thorough search, including the groin area.

extreme viagra sex stories Option: Ask to take a witness with you.

If you are taken to a private area for a “resolution pat-down” search, you can ask to bring a witness with you, or ask TSA to provide a witness for you.  This search should also be conducted by a person of the same gender.

extreme viagra sex stories Traveling with Children

While you may opt your children out of an airport scan, there is no exemption for children from the pat-down searches. TSA says it must “screen everyone, regardless of age (even babies).”

extreme viagra sex stories Religious Head Coverings

extreme viagra sex stories Option: Tell TSA about religious head coverings

If your religion does not allow you to remove your head covering, you can tell TSA officials.  They may ask you to pat-down your headwear, then rub your hands with a cloth and place it in a machine to test for chemical residue.  If the TSA official still wants you to remove your religious head covering, you have the right to ask to do this in a private area.

extreme viagra sex stories Searches of Bags, Laptops, and Electronics

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) claims the right to search and confiscate laptops, mobile phones, digital cameras, and other electronic devices upon entry to the United States, without any suspicion of wrongdoing.  In some reported cases, CBP has held travelers’ electronics for more than a year.

The ACLU and other organizations have filed a lawsuit challenging these searches.

extreme viagra sex stories Option: Ask to see a supervisor, and get a receipt

You have the right to have the initial search conducted in front of a supervisor.  If they take your electronics, you can ask for a receipt so you can track where they are and seek their return.

extreme viagra sex stories Fingerprinting

All visitors and lawful permanent residents are fingerprinted on entry into the U.S. from abroad.

extreme viagra sex stories Border Interrogations

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials have the authority to ask your immigration status when you are entering or returning to the United States or leaving the country.  They have the power to determine whether or not non-U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents have the right of entry.

Law enforcement officials reportedly ask some people about their political and religious beliefs, where they worship, and how often they pray.  The ACLU believes that such questions are inappropriate.

extreme viagra sex stories Option: Decline to answer

If you think you are being asked inappropriate questions, you may say, “I am sorry.  I believe you are asking me questions about my protected religious and/or political beliefs and practices. I do not wish to answer these questions.”  This may cause you delay, but is permissible.

extreme viagra sex stories Option: Ask to speak to a supervisor

If you think you are being asked inappropriate questions, you can ask to speak to a supervisor–but be aware that this might cause you further delay.  Also ask to speak to a supervisor if you are denied the right to use a restroom or to have family or friends told where you are.  You may also file a complaint with the Civil Rights Office of the Department of Homeland Security if you have been held for a long time, asked inappropriate questions, or treated inhumanely. See below.

extreme viagra sex stories Option: Ask to have an attorney present

If you are selected for a longer interview by law-enforcement officials and you are a U.S. citizen, you have the right to have an attorney present.  If you are not a U.S. citizen, you generally do not have the right to an attorney when you are having an extended interview.

extreme viagra sex stories Option: Ask for help

If you are delayed a considerable length of time, you can ask CBP officials to allow you to make a call, or make a call for you.

extreme viagra sex stories Asylum

If you are told you cannot enter the country and fear you might be persecuted or tortured if sent back to the country you traveled from, you can tell the official about your fear and ask for asylum.

extreme viagra sex stories Tell the ACLU

The ACLU might be able to help you file your complaint or try to get an answer. Call your local ACLU affiliate for assistance.

You may also file a complaint online:

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/tsa-pat-down-search-abuse

extreme viagra sex stories File a Complaint with the Department of Homeland Security

You can file a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security if you have had any of the following problems:

• being detained for long periods of time when coming back to the country;
• being asked inappropriate questions when returning to the U.S.;
• being treated differently at airports and ports of entry because of your race, religion, or national origin;
• being forced to go through the AIT scanners at airports, even though you have told agents you do not wish to go through;
• being patted down in an inappropriate manner;
• if you believe your rights have been violated in any other way.

You may also file a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP) if you are:

• repeatedly being delayed when trying to board an airplane because of security concerns; or
• being told you are on a list and not being allowed to fly.

Complaints should include the following:

• your name;
• date of birth;
• phone number;
• mailing address;
• email address;
• a written description of the incident, giving as much detail as possible, including (if available) the name and agency of the individual(s) alleged to have committed the violation.

Contact:

By mail or phone
The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Building 410, Mail Stop #0190
Washington, DC 20528

Phone: 202-401-1474
Toll Free: 1-866-644-8360
TTY: 202-401-0470
Toll Free TTY: 1-866-644-8361
Fax: 202-401-4708

By e-mail
crcl@dhs.gov

Online

Travler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP)

http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1169676919316.shtm

There are 70 airports around the country already using the controversial body scanners. These machines use low-dose radiation to produce strikingly graphic images of passengers’ bodies. Further, their effectiveness in keeping us safe is debatable. Authorities at DHS say you can opt out of the naked scan. But doing so will subject you to new and highly invasive manual searches of your body, including your most intimate parts by TSA officers.

The government is also searching and seizing laptops and other electronic devices of international travelers. Never before in history have customs officers been able to routinely pore through a lifetime’s worth of letters, photographs, purchase records and other data with no suspicion.

With the holiday travel season fast approaching, we need to make sure that security measures are in place that actually make us more secure without compromising passenger privacy.

Send Secretary Napolitano A Message

By Peter Simonson, ACLU-NM Executive Director

The GOP’s efforts to convince voters that the election system is wracked by fraud took another hit last week when the NM Court of Appeals rejected the Party’s effort to get a hold of the names and addresses of undocumented immigrants who have received state driver’s licenses.  The GOP had hoped to use the information to check whether non-citizen immigrants were registered to vote in New Mexico.

Talk about a wild goose chase.  What immigrant is going to risk felony charges, permanent deportation, and the total upheaval of his or her family just to cast a ballot in a US election?  Barely fifty percent of American citizens exercise that right even in the best of years!

What’s really concerning is how readily local GOP leaders will sacrifice individuals’ right to privacy in the zeal to find evidence of voter fraud.  Two years ago the ACLU sued members of the Republican Party for violating state privacy laws after the Party obtained copies of individual voter registration forms and released the information to the press.  GOP members also used the information to track down lawful voters and challenge their right to vote in their homes.

Americans don’t need another disincentive to vote, like the belief that fraud so compromises the election system that voting is fruitless.  If the GOP truly has the best interests of our electoral democracy in mind, it should devote its effort to encouraging New Mexicans to take part in elections.  It could start by promoting mobile vote registration campaigns and removing ID requirements for voting in Albuquerque elections.