Our country is in the midst of a modern-day reckoning with its identity and its history of racialized oppression. Triggered in part by the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and so many others, our communities are grappling with the long history of inequality and hatred that continues to rear its head — more recently, in what must be understood as the lynching of Ahmaud Arbery.

These individual acts of racialized violence, as well as violence taking place in the context of subsequent protests such as that in Kenosha, highlight pervasive issues of systemic racism and the need for sweeping, structural changes in all of our economic, political, and social systems. Black Lives Matter — from the cradle to the grave.

As Black people, we are not just standing up for the right to live free from fear of vigilantism by racist mobs and a system of policing that does not value all lives equally. We are also standing up for the right to vote without discriminatory election practices; to send our children to schools that practice inclusive education and are free of discriminatory discipline and criminalization; to find housing and employment unimpeded by discrimination and algorithmic bias; to serve on juries; and to exercise our rights of free speech and assembly to demand justice.

Here at the ACLU, we are affirmatively dedicated to continuing to fight the long and good fight for these deep structural changes, including in our national litigation and advocacy work for systemic equality. Amidst that ongoing work, in the aftermath of the brutal killing of Ahmaud Arbery and in response to the rising up and demands of brave Georgians, the ACLU of Georgia joined hands with other organizations and helped change the state’s citizen arrest law wielded by the defendants in this case.

We do this because it is our role, our duty, and our mandate to ensure that the individual rights and liberties of the Constitution apply to ALL of the country’s people.

While all of this work progresses and deepens, we have closely watched high-profile jury trials unfold as individual actors faced criminal prosecution and juries convened to render verdicts. Just last week, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges after shooting three men in Kenosha, Wisc., killing two of them, during protests against the shooting of Jacob Blake by police. Today, a jury in Brunswick, Ga. found all three of the men charged in the killing of Mr. Arbery guilty of murder and other charges.

We mourn the terror and trauma that the families of all of these victims of violence are facing, including Mr. Arbery’s family. But measuring progress solely by the outcome of these trials risks both ignoring the importance of greater systemic change and compromising fairness in the criminal legal system, which itself is a core, founding principle for the ACLU.

Kyle Rittenhouse received protections that I wish my primarily Black and Brown clients had received when I served as a public defender. For example, the court granted Rittenhouse’s attorneys’ request that the government not be allowed to describe the men fatally shot and attacked by Rittenhouse as “victims.” This request did not surprise me. My former colleagues and I routinely made similar requests to preserve the presumption of innocence for our clients. But what did surprise me was the fact that the court granted this request. Not once in my 23 years as a public defender were my clients afforded this same protection — and they should have been.

Our system is designed to provide everyone accused of a crime with the presumption of innocence. That presumption remains with the accused unless the government is able to prove otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt. When we look to particular outcomes in criminal cases to send a message or set an example, we run the risk of unintentionally calling for a diminishment of procedural protections and further harming those disproportionately pulled into the system of criminal punishment: people from marginalized communities where systemic racism runs rampant.

The trials of accused individuals are not a proxy for solving wider societal problems. We don’t need a conviction in Kenosha to know that it’s a threat to many when actual and would-be militias roam the streets in a self-assigned mission to “keep the peace.” We knew, long before the Rittenhouse trial concluded, that those armed, overwhelmingly white groups are threaded through with anti-Black and anti-democratic sentiments that pose profound threats to our safety, and to democratic government. And we didn’t need a conviction in Georgia to demand and achieve systemic changes such that no resident of that state could be under the impression that vigilante justice is protected by state law.

The true measure of justice is not whether there are convictions or acquittals in either of these cases. Instead, the true measure of justice is in the work we are steadfastly doing today and in the days after verdicts are rendered. It is in the work to delineate what “racial justice” truly means; the work to root out racist violence in all of its forms; the work to end mass incarceration; the work to stand up in the streets for Black lives, for justice and equality, and to protect that right as the First Amendment guarantees.

Following the Supreme Court’s shameful overturning of Roe v. Wade earlier this year, voters overwhelmingly showed up and showed out to protect reproductive freedom during the midterm elections. With the holiday season fast approaching, abortion is likely to come up in conversations about the news — including among friends and family.

Here, we share a handy reference guide on this timely issue — full of the quick, crucial facts on abortion rights you’ll want to be equipped with if it comes up at your dinner table.

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT:

The Facts

• Abortion is overwhelmingly safe.
• The right to abortion is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans.
• Abortion is common. One in four women who are able to get pregnant will have an abortion at some point.
• Abortion is essential health care, a constitutional right, and a human right.

Abortion should be accessible to anyone who needs it. Period.

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT:

What Forced Pregnancy Is and Isn’t

• When it comes to discussing abortion access, the focus should remain centered on the people who need, or will need, this critical care — and the direct harm forced pregnancy places on lives.
• Despite how anti-abortion politicians may frame it, forced pregnancy is not some political talking point: Forced pregnancy is taking away a person’s constitutional and human right to control their body and their future.
• Denying someone abortion care has devastating and lasting consequences for the pregnant person — it can jeopardize their health, economic well-being and ability to determine their own future, for not only themselves but their family.

Forced Pregnancy laws include:

• All bans on abortion.
• Medically unnecessary restrictions designed to shut down clinics so that people have to travel further to get abortion care.
• Creating medically unnecessary hoops to jump through in order to discourage and block people from getting an abortion.
• Laws that require insurance plans to exclude abortion coverage.
• Laws designed to run out the clock that force people to delay their abortion care.
• Medically unnecessary laws that increase the cost of care but do nothing to increase patient safety.
• Denying people under 18 years of age access to confidential care by requiring the consent of others.

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT:

Who Forced Pregnancy Impacts the Most

• While it has been a legal right for five decades, politicians have long passed laws that push abortion out of reach. The impact of those policies falls disproportionately on those struggling financially; Black, Indigenous, and people of color; undocumented people; young people; and LGBTQ people.
• Black, Indigenous, and other people of color do not have equal access to health care, from abortion to prenatal care to preventive care. Their concerns are often ignored or not taken seriously by medical providers. They have worse outcomes for COVID-related health issues, higher rates of maternal and infant death, and are more likely to be investigated, prosecuted, and punished for their pregnancy outcomes.
• Some people have the resources to overcome the obstacles imposed by anti-abortion laws, but people with low incomes, young people, and undocumented people are more likely to be forced to continue a pregnancy even if that’s not the outcome they want.
• Abortion access for all means ALL. Restrictions on abortion care directly impact transgender men and nonbinary people — and we’re fighting to protect the reproductive freedom of everyone who can get pregnant.

Additional information about forced pregnancy and an overview of the ACLU’s ongoing legal battles fighting abortion bans can be found here:

American Civil Liberties Union

End Forced Pregnancy | American Civil Liberties Union

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, but the ACLU will never stop fighting for your reproductive rights.

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT:

The Landscape of Abortion Access

• Within a week of the Dobbs decision, several states banned abortion entirely or at the earliest stages of pregnancy and, by design, abortion was inaccessible in a handful of states because of the uncertainty left by conflicting abortion restrictions.
• Abortion rights earned resounding victories across every state where it was on the ballot. Kansas, Kentucky and Montana voters successfully voted against anti-abortion ballot initiatives. And California, Michigan, and Vermont voters triumphantly protected abortion access by voting affirmatively on their ballot measures.
• About 13 states currently have full bans or severe restrictions to abortion access in effect, and about 11 other states have attempted to implement abortion bans which have been temporarily blocked by federal and state courts.
• The same states that are banning abortion also have some of the highest rates of maternal mortality in the country, and the consequences will fall hardest on Black women and other people of color. Already, Black women are three times more likely than white women to die during childbirth or shortly thereafter.
• Abortion isn’t the only right at stake: the same extremists seeking to ban abortion are also coming for our rights to access birth control, gender-affirming health care, marriage equality, and the right to vote.

Listen to our At Liberty podcast for an in-depth analysis of where abortion rights stand after the midterms.

American Civil Liberties Union

Abortion Rights Won the Midterms, Now What? | American Civil Liberties Union

The midterms gave us a sense of where voters stand on abortion access. So, what comes next following the many reproductive rights victories?

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT:

Abortion at the Supreme Court

The Mississippi case: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

The state of Mississippi asked the court to expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and take away the federal constitutional right to abortion. Full stop. The case was argued by the Center for Reproductive Rights before the Supreme Court on Dec. 1, and decided on June 24, 2022. The decision shamefully overturned Roe, and had an immediate, far-reaching, and devastating effect.

American Civil Liberties Union

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization | American Civil Liberties Union

The case was filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights  in March 2018 on behalf of Jackson Women’s Health Organization—the last remaining...

The Georgia case: Sistersong v. Georgia

On November 15th, in a case brought by the ACLU, the Superior Court of Fulton County struck down Georgia’s ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, allowing health care providers in the state to once again provide essential abortion and miscarriage care to Georgians beyond the earliest weeks in pregnancy.

American Civil Liberties Union

SisterSong v. State of Georgia | American Civil Liberties Union

The case was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County on June 26 by Georgia physicians, reproductive health care providers, and advocates...

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT:

The Future of Abortion Rights

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs was an unprecedented attack on women’s rights and reproductive freedom, but we’ll continue to fight for abortion access and challenge abortion bans wherever we can — and you can, too.

Voters in Michigan, Kentucky, Vermont, California, and across the country have demonstrated they will protect reproductive freedom and stand up for the ability to access essential abortion care in overwhelming numbers. In Michigan, voters passed one of the most comprehensive constitutional amendments that will preserve the right to reproductive freedom for generations to come.

Here are six ways you can continue the fight for abortion rights no matter where you live.

American Civil Liberties Union

Six Ways You Can Join the Fight for Abortion Rights | ACLU

This is a perilous moment for our rights, but there are still ways to take action to support and protect abortion rights.

Through litigation, advocacy, and people power, we must continue fighting for abortion in the courts, in statehouses, and at ballot boxes across the country. The courts have shown us that they won’t save us from cruel political attacks on our bodily autonomy. But we have a message for them: Politicians don’t get the final say, we do. Together, we can and will take back our right to abortion and ensure every person can get the care they need, no matter where they live, how much money they have, or who they are. Donate now to join us.

In 2018, Dijon Sharpe, a Black civil rights activist in North Carolina, was the passenger in a car that got pulled over by two police officers. Having previously experienced a violent beating by police officers during a traffic stop, he began livestreaming the interaction on social media. The officers on the scene told him he wasn’t allowed to livestream, and tried to physically obstruct the stream by seizing his phone from his hand. Mr. Sharpe filed a lawsuit arguing that the officers had violated his First Amendment right to record and livestream the police.

The right to record police conduct — without which the public’s right to criticize the government and expose government misconduct or systemic abuse would be considerably weakened — has been widely upheld by the courts. But the district court in this case drew a line between recording and livestreaming, concluding that, while the First Amendment may protect the right to record, it doesn’t protect the right to livestream. And it also held that, even if the First Amendment protects bystanders, it doesn’t protect passengers during traffic stops.

As we argue in a friend-of-the-court brief filed last week, the district court was wrong on both counts.

People have been recording persistent, horrific law enforcement violence against Black people and other people of color for decades. Notably, a bystander recorded LA officers beating Rodney King on a Sony video camera almost 30 years ago. Last year, bystander video of Minneapolis police killing George Floyd played a key role in Black Lives Matter protests that spanned more parts of the country and involved more people than any public movement in recent U.S. history. And years of Black-led organizing in the wake of such bystander videos has generated widespread calls — which the ACLU supports — to shift many roles and resources away from policing and into reinvesting in Black and Brown communities.

Livestreaming has also been part of our public discourse for decades. It’s as old as TV and radio news. Indeed, news reporters are perhaps the “bystanders” we are all most familiar with, and they regularly report live — including from the scene of breaking news. These broadcasts are protected by the First Amendment: Speech is protected regardless of medium, and the choice of when to publish is part of freedom of speech.

The significance and necessity of protecting livestreaming has only become clearer since internet-connected phone cameras have come into widespread use, and the rise in social media has helped bring cases of police abuses to public light.

In 2016, Diamond Reynolds, Philando Castile’s girlfriend, famously livestreamed the moments immediately following Minnesota police fatally shooting him. In doing so, she shared and preserved the horrific reality of a deadly police interaction. And, had she not been livestreaming, the footage might never have made it to the public eye, because police handcuffed Diamond during her livestream, causing her phone to fall to the ground. Because she was livestreaming, however, the conduct and words of the police were still shared and preserved after the phone fell.

This is not uncommon. Although they can go to jail for it, officers sometimes seize or destroy phones, memory cards, and cameras, meaning that livestreaming may be the only option for sharing footage. This includes during traffic stops, which are the most common contexts in which people interact with — and are abused by — law enforcement in public.

Protecting the rights not only of bystanders, but also of those involved in the police interaction is critical. While the most comprehensive and easily shared recordings often come from bystanders — and those recordings can spark or support nationwide calls for justice — people who are part of the police interaction itself are even more vulnerable to experiencing violence and not being able to document it. And they have a unique perspective to share.

Recording and livestreaming interactions is a critical tool for communities that are over-policed and disproportionately targeted by law enforcement because it often serves as the only “proof” that police misconduct has occurred. Police body cameras, which were originally intended to increase transparency and police accountability, are not an adequate substitute for civilian-captured videos. Too many jurisdictions have not enacted good, enforceable body camera rules, giving police officers considerable discretion to frequently switch off those cameras, block them intentionally during unlawful action, or make it difficult to retrieve the footage later on. Even if the footage works as intended, captures all conduct, and is preserved and turned over properly, footage is often illegitimately withheld from the public. And even if preserved and released to the public, police body cameras inherently capture the point of view of the police, not of those who are being policed.

Recordings and livestreams have contributed to a growing societal understanding of how frequently this type of violence occurs against the Black community and other over-policed communities of color. Such footage is by no means a perfect safeguard — for every violent police interaction that goes viral, many others occur without being documented. But that makes protecting the First Amendment right to record and livestream those that are captured all the more important, as it sheds light on at least a fraction of existing abuses. It is critical that the courts maintain robust First Amendment protections for people to record, share, and stream police interactions. Our ability to speak about police abuses depends on it.