This piece originally ran at on The Boston Globe’s ongoing series "."
"We are worried about the consequences of our decision."
Today's utterance by Chief Judge Sandra Lynch, of the First Circuit Court of Appeals, gives me hope that the court will do justice for the victims of human trafficking who will be impacted by how the First Circuit rules in a case argued before it this morning.
The case, American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts v. Sebelius, raises the critical issue of whether the federal government violated the First Amendment when it delegated the spending of federal dollars to a religious institution which, in turn, used those federal funds to impose its unique religious restrictions on medical services offered to victims of human trafficking.
The facts of the case are compelling. Each year, thousands of women and girls, men and boys are trafficked in this country and around the world, enduring the most horrific conditions imaginable. They are often beaten, brutally raped, forced into prostitution, and required to live in inhumane conditions. Many trafficked women, girls, and boys are subjected to forced sex multiple times a day, putting them at risk for unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. Upon escape from their traffickers, many of these women, girls, and boys need access to an array of medical services, including abortion services, contraception, and testing and treatment for HIV and sexually transmitted infections.
So horrific is the plight of trafficking victims that in 2000, Congress passed the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA), authorizing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide grants and contracts to medical providers to help victims of trafficking.
For five years, the program worked well. But in 2005, the Bush Administration's HHS stopped giving these grants to social service providers directly and, instead, installed the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as the middle-man to give away the money for the federal government.
It's bad enough that the Catholic Bishops skimmed off 30 percent of the money to pay for people to monitor and enforce its religious restrictions and other "overhead" (more than the 20 percent it was permitted to take under the statute). But the Catholic Bishops also announced that, "As a Catholic organization, we need to ensure that our victim services are not used to refer or fund activities that would be contrary to our moral convictions and religious beliefs. Specifically, subcontractors could not provide or refer for abortion services or contraception materials."
When pressed, the Catholic Bishops made it clear that religion--and religion alone--was its sole reason to deny grants to groups who provide contraception and abortion counseling and referral services to women and children who have been raped and brutalized.
As a constitutional matter, I have no problem with the Catholic Bishops--or any other religious institution--embracing and enforcing its religious beliefs on its own adherents.
But I have a big problem when federal dollars are given to a church--or any other religious institution--to compel victims to adhere to that church's religious belief.
Here, the situation is even worse than proselytizing--it's actually forcing torture victims to adhere to Catholic religious tenets that frown on contraception and abortion, at a time when they most need these legal medical services.
For this reason, the federal trial court--in an eloquent and compelling decision by Judge Stearns--ruled in March that the federal government did, in fact, violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause (aka "separation of church and state") when it permitted the Catholic Bishops to impose their will on social service providers and trafficking victims.
Today, on appeal, the three judges on the First Circuit focused on technical legal arguments, such as whether taxpayers have "standing" to challenge the program and whether the case became moot after the Obama administration let the grant expire (although HHS is still funneling similar grants with similar religious restrictions through the Catholic Bishops).
I hope the Court doesn't hide behind technical legalisms.
If "bad facts make bad law," as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote, you'd like to think that these enormously compelling facts would result in good law. The judges are correct to be worried about the "consequences of their decisions," because real human lives are at stake.
The standard should be doing justice which, in this case, clearly falls on the side of upholding the lower court ruling and defending the rights of American taxpayers, religious liberty, and victims of human trafficking.
Learn more about human trafficking: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Human Rights
Failed War on Drugs Policies Won't Stop the Overdose Crisis, But Harm Reduction Can Save LivesFailed War on Drugs Policies Won't Stop the Overdose Crisis, But Harm Reduction Can Save Lives
Research shows extensive benefits from syringe exchange and other harm reduction programs. But misguided efforts to ban common sense care continue. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Racial Justice
Human Rights
Why the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights IssueWhy the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights Issue
On International Human Rights Day, the ACLU is advocating for a long-sought after reparatory justice to end the continued abuses against Black and brown communities. -
Press ReleaseOct 2024
Human Rights
Free Speech
Universities Should Protect Students’ Right to Protest, End Crackdown on Peaceful ProtestsUniversities Should Protect Students’ Right to Protest, End Crackdown on Peaceful Protests
WASHINGTON – College and university presidents across the U.S. need to respect and protect the right to protest in support of Palestinian rights the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch said today in an open letter. For months the organizations have raised concerns about the potential use of unlawful force when university administrators call in law enforcement officers to break up demonstrations on campus. This new letter comes after reports of heavy-handed and excessive force by some campus police and local law enforcement against peaceful protests and encampments across the country. The groups provide recommendations for colleges and universities to ensure they protect the right to protest on their campuses. The organizations also urge university administrations to refrain from taking any further measures to suppress student protests on campus, including stopping the use of so-called less lethal weapons and ensuring that coercive police power is used only as a last resort, among other recommendations. “Universities are responsible for protecting both physical safety and free expression on campus,” said Jamil Dakwar, director at the ACLU’s Human Rights Program. “It’s deeply concerning to see universities needlessly expose students to police violence for peacefully expressing their political opinions. We’re urging schools once again to exercise restraint, practice de-escalation, and protect free speech and dissent on campus.” Preliminary analysis by Amnesty International’s Digital Verification Corps has identified at least 174 photos, videos, or social media posts from 20 universities of potential excessive use of force by law enforcement under international law that merits further investigation. This includes 17 universities where chemical irritants such as pepper spray appear to have been used against student protesters, and 11 universities where officers appear to have responded to protests armed with kinetic impact projectiles such as rubber bullets. The results of this use of force by law enforcement agencies have been devastating, including media-verified reports of severe injuries such as bleeding puncture wounds, head injuries, broken teeth, and suspected broken bones, most notably at the University of California Los Angeles, Columbia University, and the City College of New York. The Digital Verification Corps also documented at least 10 other universities where photos or videos capture potential injuries to students. It found that half of the incidents involving injuries under investigation appear to be the result of chemical irritants. “The information we have gathered on excessive use of force against student protesters is extremely worrisome and we are still in the beginning of our investigation,” said Justin Mazzola, researcher with Amnesty International USA. “With the continuation of the Israeli military’s assault on Gaza and the risk of US complicity through the sending of weapons, campus protests in favor of stopping the violence and destruction will continue. Universities have a responsibility to protect academic freedom and the rights to freedom of expression, and to peacefully protest, and we will be watching to ensure they do.” The ACLU, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch are not alone in their concern. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and several UN experts, including the UN special rapporteur on the right to education, have criticized the violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators by law enforcement and disciplinary measures against students exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. All higher education institutions, even private colleges and universities, where the First Amendment is not applicable, have a responsibility to respect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly under international law. “Instead of resorting to police action that both shuts down free speech and heightens the risk of injuries, universities need to do more to protect student speech from violence and intimidation, and actively ensure that peaceful student expression continues without interference,” said Tanya Greene, director of the US program at Human Rights Watch. As the letter explains, the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Human Rights Watch are conducting research and analysis of how campus administrators are responding to student protests. They urge universities to fulfill their human rights responsibilities by facilitating protests and ensuring that all students' rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, regardless of viewpoint, is respected. A comprehensive joint report on this issue is slated to be released by the ACLU and Amnesty International USA in the coming months. The open letter is available here: /documents/letter-to-universities-student-protesters -
News & CommentaryOct 2024
Immigrants' Rights
Human Rights
Three Ways the Media Introduces Bias to the Immigration DebateThree Ways the Media Introduces Bias to the Immigration Debate
Ahead of the election, we examined how political ads and news media stories depict the immigration debate as more negative than it may be.