Tomorrow's the big day: Election Day! The last day to vote. Here at the ACLU, we have just one closing argument: Everyone should be able to vote, and everyone’s vote should be counted. So, we want to prepare you to know your rights when you head to the ballot box. We've prepared a short and sweet audio guide for you. We'll see you at the polls!

Know Your Voting Rights - At the Polls Series

At Liberty is a weekly podcast from the ACLU that explores the biggest civil rights and civil liberties issues of the day. A production of ACLU, Inc.

News

Today, on April 24, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that will determine the future of emergency abortion care. At issue in the case of Idaho v. United States is whether or not doctors in states where abortion is banned have to continue to deny abortion care—even in emergency settings—despite the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires all hospitals to provide life saving and medically stabilizing health care to anyone who shows up at their emergency room.

Currently, medical providers in Idaho can only perform an abortion in the event that the pregnant person will imminently die without one. Even if a pregnant person will incur permanent disability or undue harm to their life without an abortion, the procedure is still banned. As you can imagine, these two laws have put doctors in a precarious position in Idaho. The circumstances are even more dire for pregnant patients in the state, particularly those with disabilities. Disabled pregnant people are far more likely to necessitate this kind of care than their non-disabled peers, as most disabled pregnant folks already have high risk pregnancies.
Disabled people know all too well the risks of not accessing care when it's needed, and the hardship, pain, and suffering that can escape the claw of “imminent death.” So, today we're talking about the intersection of disability and abortion rights, in regard to this case and more broadly. 

Joining me to discuss this is Dr. Robyn Powell, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Law, specializing in disability and family law. She's also a co-investigator at the National Research Center for Parents with Disabilities.

Special Edition: Emergency Abortion Care at SCOTUS

On April 22, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass, the most significant court case about the rights of people experiencing homelessness in decades. At its core, Grants Pass will decide whether cities are allowed to punish people for things like sleeping outside with a pillow or blanket—even when there are no safe shelter options—posing potentially great risk to the 250,000 Americans who sleep outside on any given night.

This case comes at a time when the affordable housing market is strapped with a deficit of 6.8 million affordable housing units needed nationwide for extremely low-income families. Moreover, according to a recent Harvard study, one in four renters, or 11.2 million households, are “severely burdened by rents that took up over half their incomes.” These millions of renters living paycheck to paycheck are at significant risk of losing their home at the turn of a rainy day, with Americans of color, disabled Americans and queer and trans Americans at even greater risk. With so many folks on a razor thin edge of experiencing housing instability these days, all eyes are on Grants Pass.

Joining us to talk more about the case and the broader systemic issue of housing instability, homelessness, and what it would take to make a meaningful dent in both, is Jennifer Friedenbach, the Executive Director of the Coalition on Homelessness in San Francisco.

SCOTUS Will Decide If Homelessness Can be Punished

From the ACLU, this is At Liberty. I'm Kendall Ciesemier, your host.

A month ago, we visited one of our favorite spots, the library. You know, at the ACLU, we love a good library. So much so that we even spent a recent Saturday night at the Brooklyn Public Library, along with some 5,000 others, for their annual enrichment event, Night in the Library.

The theme for this year's event was Out of Darkness, and it included an all-night lineup of performances and conversations focused on what it means to face hardship head-on, and what we gain from confronting life's challenges with honesty, curiosity, and compassion, and understanding. When we were invited to host a conversation during the event, we knew immediately who we wanted to share with our neighbors in Brooklyn: Ian Manuel.

You might remember Ian from our episode back in January when he joined us to talk about juvenile life without parole, solitary confinement, and restorative justice. Ian is an author, poet, activist, and absolute visionary, working to change our criminal legal system after facing 18 years in solitary confinement himself and 26 years in prison, beginning when he was only 14 years old.

He knows firsthand what it's like to face darkness in life and move through it and he credits his practice of magical thinking for helping him. 

This is the idea that we used as the basis for our Night in the Library conversation. And with it being both National Library Week and National Poetry Month, right now, I can't think of a better time to share it.

So I invite you to cozy up with us between the bookshelves and enjoy the highlights from The Light of Magical Thinking, live from the Brooklyn Public Library.

Live from Brooklyn Public Library: The Power of Poetry and Magical Thinking

Last December, Texas lawmakers passed Senate Bill 4, one of the most extreme pieces of anti-immigrant legislation to emerge from any state legislature. Under S.B. 4, local and state law enforcement can arrest people they suspect to have entered Texas without federal authorization. It also permits Texas judges, who are not trained in immigration law, to order the deportation of migrants to ports of entry along the Texas-Mexico border, regardless of which country they are from.

Additionally, individuals may face charges under a new state crime of “illegal entry,” or “illegal re-entry,” as well as refusal to comply with deportation orders, with some charges carrying penalties of up to 20 years in prison. Since S.B. 4 passed, a whirlwind of court orders have stopped it from being enforced or allowed it for a very short time, which has caused widespread confusion. States do not have the constitutional authority to deport people, and an unconstitutional law like S.B. 4 only imposes added threat to migrants’ livelihoods and path to asylum. 

Here to give us the latest news on S.B. 4 and our fight against it is David Donatti, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas working on immigration.

The Most Extreme Anti-Immigration Bill We've Seen

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will determine if nationwide restrictions are imposed on access to mifepristone, a safe medication used in more than half of all U.S. abortions, and for miscarriage treatment. What the court decides later this year will have significant implications on our ability to access abortion, no matter where you live, even in states with legal protections for abortion.

The decision could also impact how other medications are protected from interference -- that is, the court could decide that anyone who doesn’t like a certain medication can levy a lawsuit to block access to the drug.

To unpack what we heard, we have Julia Kaye, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project who is on site in Washington, D.C. and is joining us just hours after hearing the arguments live.

Know Your Voting Rights - At the Polls Series

Download our free app to listen on your phone