Showing posts with label Griswold v. Connecticut. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Griswold v. Connecticut. Show all posts

Monday, May 12, 2014

Fifty years after Griswold v. Connecticut, NYPD to accommodate safer sex, but stops short of recognizing privacy rights to contraception [UPDATED]

2013-04-11 Protest against Christine Quinn - Condom Banner photo Image_zps30c06990.jpg

At a nighttime protest in Jackson Heights, Queens, last year, activists held up a banner with a giant drawing of condom locked in a police handcuff to represent the NYPD's criminalization of the use of contraception.

New York Police Department to stop criminalizing use of contraception -- in some cases

Advocates for sex workers and improved public health won a major concession from the New York Police Department's on-going oppression against citizens when police officials announced that they would stop seizing reproductive contraceptives, namely, condoms, as evidence of criminality in police crackdowns against sex workers.

Police announced the change in policy after years of demands from activists that the police were stigmatizing the use of condoms, so much so that health officials had long criticized the police practice as undermining their efforts to protect sex workers from disease. In fact, during the 15 years that former Council Speaker Christine Quinn was in public office, she was the city's most visible female and LGBT politician, and she never made any advancement on overturning the police criminalization of condoms. Indeed, under her incumbency, police biases against trans and gender non-conforming citizens extended the anti-condom dragnet against sex workers to include members of the LGBT community. In several media reports, LGBT New Yorkers attested to being harassed, arrested, and stigmatized by the police for innocently carrying contraception -- in direct violation of their privacy rights. What is more, many HIV/AIDS activists had long objected to the police's stigmatization of the use of condoms as flying in the face of advice from city health officials, who advocated their use for safer sex as a way to decrease the incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and to prevent unwanted pregnancies. For years, if New Yorkers were caught carrying condoms, the prophylactics could be used as criminal evidence in sex worker prosecution cases -- even though the city's Department of Health distributed condoms to all New Yorkers to promote safer sex and greater public health.

In announcing their change in policy today, NYPD officials carved out a backdoor loophole to retain the right to use condoms as evidence in sex trafficking cases, however.

The nominal changes in NYPD condom policy, being spun under the guise as an advancement to public health, comes almost 50 years since the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the landmark 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut that overturned a state law that had criminalized the use of contraception. In The New York Times article posted to their Web site, there was no mention by police as according any reasoning in the policy change to respect New Yorkers' right to privacy. Nor was it mentioned whether police would stop menacing LGBT New Yorkers as part of its new compromised policy. In respect of reproductive rights, it was never explained how police departments across the United States could opt out of compliance in the first place with the Griswold decision.

The partial backpedal on the condom policy is the NYPD's latest half-measure at reform since the election of Mayor Bill de Blasio. Mr. de Blasio campaigned to end the "stop-and-frisk era," but the mayor contradicted his campaign promise by making a regressive appointment of William Bratton as the city's new police commissioner. Commissioner Bratton has promised to continue to use the controversial police tacking known as stop-and-frisk, which has been ruled to be unconstitutional for its racist impact on the community. Mr. de Blasio also campaigned on the promise to stop the arrests of New Yorkers carrying small amounts of marijuana, but Commissioner Bratton's arrest rate for marijuana possession is actually up from the rate of his predecessor, Raymond Kelly. The NYPD has also promised to disband a controversial demographics unit, which targeted New York's Muslim community, but the police department continues to its practice of racial and religious profiling, and surveillance, of Muslims. As Mayor de Blasio tries to resolve many outstanding litigation cases against the police department over its killing of unarmed, innocent civilians and its policy of using brutality against New Yorkers, the de Blasio administration seems to be neglecting long outstanding cases of minority plaintiffs, such as the Central Park 5, further causing tensions over the new administration's insensitivity to the concerns of people long oppressed by the police. Since Mayor de Blasio supports Commissioner Bratton's "broken windows theory" of policing, the NYPD is expected to continue to target its aggressive policing tactics against the city's poor and people of color.

The government compromises its citizens' right to privacy in the new surveillance state, but what happens to citizens' other fundamental rights that are predicated on privacy ?

Meghan Newcomer, a brilliant future lawyer graduating this year from Fordham Law School, published a "Pelican Brief" of sorts last year in the Fordham Law Review entitled, "Can Condoms be Compelling ? Examining the State Interest in Confiscating Condoms from Suspected Sex Workers," about the criminal crackdown by police departments in New York City, Washington, DC, and Los Angeles against sex workers carrying condoms. In Ms. Newcomer's legal analysis, she examined the government's burden in proving it could violate the fundamental right to contraception, and she found that the government could not achieve a compelling state reason to do so. Ms. Newcomer expertly framed her legal reasoning around the constitutional privacy rights established under the landmark Griswold case and other related rulings and laws. After examining the law, Ms. Newcomer concluded in her article that :

Because the Supreme Court has identified a right for all individuals to be free from state interference in their choice of whether to use contraceptive devices, state actors confiscating condoms from suspected sex workers infringes on that constitutionally protected privacy right. The government’s lack of a compelling state interest in taking condoms, coupled with the failure to narrowly tailor the policy so as to involve the least restrictive infringement of the right, means that the conduct cannot survive strict scrutiny. For this reason, New York City, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles are enforcing unconstitutional policies and must stop confiscating condoms from suspected sex workers.

There are more issues that need review, which were not the focus of Ms. Newcomer's fascinating article in the Fordham Law Review. Since New York City officials, privacy rights advocates, and women's rights groups are not raising alarms about the privacy violations of the police department's condom policy, are citizens basically consenting to the government's gutting of the Griswold decision ?

In the time since the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Griswold case, the impact of the court's decision has been unmistakable in expanding constitutional rights to privacy in subsequent jurisprudence. Prior to Griswold, there was no court case that found a privacy right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. After Griswold, the fundamental right to privacy was found from the court's interpretation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Further landmark Supreme Court case decisions, such as Roe v. Wade, Bowers v. Hardwick, and Lawrence v. Texas, the latter which expanded Bowers by overturning its narrower interpretation, were made possible because of legal precedent that citizens' privacy was protected by the due process clause.

With police departments essentially given discretion to opt out of the law established by the Griswold decision, advocates for police reform are focused on the public health aspects of the dangerous condom policy. Meanwhile, silent are citizens, who appear to be consenting to the wholesale undermining of reproductive freedoms and LGBT civil rights, in addition to the right to privacy established by Griswold. As the government conducts mass warrantless surveillance of its citizens to the outrage of voters, the state doesn't have to go to great lengths to legally violate citizens' privacy rights if the state can first undermine the case law establishing citizens' fundamental rights to privacy. With crime rates so low, why are police departments targeting sex workers carrying condoms ? Perhaps it is to sufficiently restrict citizens' rights under the Griswold case in order to serve the government's "compelling interest" to conduct its unconstitutional surveillance activities. If the state can chip away at privacy rights just enough, it won't technically be violating its citizens' fundamental rights if the state can, ipso facto, succeed at gutting Griswold.

As the government wears down Griswold, where does that leave citizens' rights to an abortion under Roe and to further rights to privacy and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment under Lawrence ? What about the long social movement to end discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity to which Lawrence helped to give critical mass ?

Sunday, July 7, 2013

The Nation Article About Christine Quinn And Homonationalism

From "The Powerful Lesson of New York's Police Oversight Law" (The Nation) :

"Then there was Christine Quinn, notorious for her vow to offer Police Commissioner Ray Kelly the same job. Perhaps she just is not that angry about how Kelly has treated Muslims and people of color New Yorkers, whether gay or straight. But the NYPD has also directly profiled queer people. It’s common for transgender and non-gender-conforming people to be stopped and arrested for prostitution simply for carrying condoms, and until recently many trans people were afraid to carry condoms for fear they could be used as evidence against them in court. I’m not alone in my ire for Quinn or my sense that she’s a flip-flopper (e.g., she voted no on 1080, but yes on 1079). There was even an “LGBT against Quinn” contingent at last weekend’s pride march. How depressing that a host of prominent gay and lesbians groups and activists—most recently Edith Windsor herself—have endorsed Quinn’s run for mayor. That’s homonationalism in action."

 photo 2013-06-30LGBTAgainstQuinn_zps4582a162.jpg

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Christine Quinn Too Cozy With Michael Bloomberg ; Condom Arrests Continue

Speaker Quinn Uses Bloomberg Events To Fluff Campaign, Turns Back On Bloomberg-NYPD Discrimination Against LGBT Community

Christine Quinn's mayoral campaign is increasingly seen as desperate, since her poll numbers are beginning to fall, now that more and more voters are tuning into her dismal political record -- and to her close relationship with the unpopular mayor, Michael Bloomberg.

  • For the second time in a week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has allowed Christine Quinn to take center stage at a big announcement by his administration. More and more, Speaker Quinn has come to be seen as interchangeable for Mayor Bloomberg during big policy announcements. “The mayor, without officially endorsing her, is helping her with his administration,” said George Arzt, a Democratic consultant. The strategy is a calculated risk: much of the criticism leveled at Ms. Quinn has been about her coziness with Mr. Bloomberg, particularly her support of the mayor’s successful effort to overturn the city’s term limits law and run for a third term. (Bloomberg Helping Quinn's Fledgling Mayoral Campaign With Media Events : NYTimes)
  • Meanwhile, as Christine Quinn uses Bloomberg administration press conferences to help rescue her sinking mayoral campaign, the Bloomberg administration continues its attack on safe sex. Advocates say too many New Yorkers land in jail after cops confiscate condoms. Clara Sierra was falsely arrested her and charged with prostitution by police, after she was found carrying condoms. She served 10 days in Rikers. On this serious issue, which affects the LGBT community, Christine Quinn sides with Mayor Bloomberg, so that she won't jeopardise his backroom support for her mayoral campaign. Speaker Quinn puts her own political ambitions over the needs of the LGBT community. It hasn't been the first time, and it certainly won't be the last. (Transgenders Face Discrimination, False Arrests By NYPD : Metro)

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Christine Quinn No Show At Jackson Heights Mayoral Forum

Several activists stood outside the Jewish Center in Jackson Heights tonight, to protest Christine Quinn's dismal record on LGBT equality, NYPD discrimination, and restrictions on the use of birth control.

Tonight's protest, which had been announced well in advance, was a success, activists said, because Christine Quinn cancelled her appearance at this forum.

2013-04-11 Protest against Christine Quinn - Condom Banner photo Image_zps30c06990.jpg

Tonight's mayoral forum was sponsored by the New Visions Democratic Club, by the Lesbian Gay Democratic Club of Queens, and by City Councilmember Daniel Dromm.

Activists distributed over 300 flyers outside of tonight's mayoral forum. In their interaction with passers-by and with the attendees at tonight's mayoral form, activists often mentioned how Christine Quinn was primarily responsible for extending term limits to allow Mayor Michael Bloomberg to steal a third term, how Christine Quinn's use of slush funds creates a culture of corruption in City Hall, and how Christine Quinn has failed to hold the NYPD accountable for discriminating against innocent New Yorkers.

2013-04-11 Protest against Christine Quinn - Protesters photo IMG_4260_zpsbc8753f7.jpg

LGBT activists question why Christine Quinn, who is the highest elected openly LGBT politician in New York City politics, does not stand up to the NYPD. The NYPD have demonstrated a pattern of discriminating and falsely arresting innocent LGBT New Yorkers if they carry condoms. Police claim that if LGBT New Yorkers carry condoms, then the condoms are evidence that LGBT New Yorkers are engaged in prostitution.

Activists displayed a banner, which portrayed a condom locked in a handcuff to represent how NYPD are trying to crack down on safe sex practices -- forcing us to return to backward Victorian times.

How can Christine Quinn support this kind of crackdown on the use of prophylactics, if the fact that prophylactics and birth control because legal in 1965 only after decades of attempts by Planned Parenthood to make it legal for people to use contraception.

But that's not all. The NYPD policy on stop-and-frisk also deliberately targets transgenders ; meanwhile, Christine Quinn does not hold the NYPD for discriminating against the LGBT community. The stop-and-frisk program discriminates, and, as a consequence, the City of New York ends up paying hundreds of millions in damages for violating the civil rights of innocent New Yorkers.

Here is one of the flyers, which activists distributed tonight :

2013-04-11 Christine Quinn Stop and Frisk Condom Flyer

What a disgrace for the NYPD to menace the LGBT community like this. In an article in The New York Times last week-end, it was notable that no LGBT leader in this city was quoted here to denounce the institutional discrimination by the NYPD of LGBT New Yorkers. Most notable was the absence or silence by Christine Quinn, the highest elected LGBT official in New York City politics. She is somebody, who has a sensibility of what it means to be treated different because of her identity as a woman and as a lesbian. And yet she has said nothing about how the NYPD treats others in the LGBT community solely based on their identity. And in all the articles about how stop-and-frisk is used by the NYPD against communities of color and other minority groups, there has remained a radio silence about how a municipality can discriminate against people in public spaces based on sex, race, and other factors that are expressly prohibited by the Civil Rights Act. When were municipalities given the option of not enforcing the Civil Rights Act ? And how can the NYPD deliberately violate Griswold v. Connecticut, the landmark case that legalised the use of contraceptives in the United States ? When did carrying contraception or prophylactics become a criminal behaviour ? How can this be ?

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Christine Quinn Looks Other Way As NYPD Menace LGBT New Yorkers Based On Fashion

Christine Quinn 3.9 Million stop and frisks under Christine Quinn photo 2013-03-28Title-III-CRA-Stop-And-Frisk-Flyer_zpsc107fd2f.jpg

"The elasticity that officers in New York and elsewhere have been given to police quality-of-life violations has had the unfortunate effect of leaving transgender women, especially, susceptible to the charge that they must be engaged in sex work."

The NYPD are arresting gays, lesbians, transgenders, and other gender non-conforming New Yorkers as part of their stop-and-frisk dragnet, and increasingly they are charging people, who do not conform to gender roles, with criminality. The charges are often suspicion of prostitution, and the police use and/or plant condoms as evidence of sex work, The New York Times has reported. See : Arrests By The Fashion Police

NYPD Condom Arrest - Protest Banner - Queers Against Christine Quinn : Protest against NYPD outside Democratic Mayoral Candidate Forum on LGBT Issues

Christine Quinn is not quoted in this article. How odd is it for the city's highest ranking LGBT official to not be visible, to be outraged by this crisis ? Or is her absence intentional ?

What a disgrace for the NYPD to menace the LGBT community like this. In an article of such gravity, it is notable that no LGBT leader in this city is quoted here to denounce the institutional discrimination by the NYPD of LGBT New Yorkers. Most notable is the absence or silence by Christine Quinn, the highest elected LGBT official in New York City politics. She is somebody, who has a sensibility of what it means to be treated different because of her identity as a woman and as a lesbian. And yet she says nothing about how the NYPD treats others in the LGBT community solely based on their identity. And in all the articles about how stop-and-frisk is used by the NYPD against communities of color and other minority groups, there remains a radio silence about how can a municipality discriminate against people in public spaces based on sex, race, and other factors that are expressly prohibited by the Civil Rights Act. When were municipalities given the option of opting out of enforcing the Civil Rights Act ? And how can the NYPD deliberately violate Griswold v. Connecticut, the landmark case that legalised the use of contraceptives in the United States ? When did carrying contraception or prophylactics become a criminal behaviour ? How can this be ?

Christine Quinn, who is speaker of the New York City Council, each year approves the NYPD budget without defunding the unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policy, but Speaker Quinn has become silent about how the NYPD menace the LGBT community. Some observe that her actions enable the NYPD to continue to use stop-and-frisk against the LGBT community, because Speaker Quinn is seeking the endorsement of the police union in her campaign for mayor.

Related : Christine Quinn betrays the LGBT community

2013-04-01 Roots of Betrayal © 2013 by Louis Flores - Uncorrected Proof Not For Sale Chapter I Excerpt by Connaissable