The headlines about the current state of abortion access seem to get worse every day.

States like Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, and Kentucky have recently passed extreme abortion bans in an attempt to directly challenge Roe v. Wade at the Supreme Court. And just this week, we learned that Missouri may become the first state without a health center that provides abortions since Roe was decided. Five other states — Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West Virginia — only have one abortion clinic left.

But with our Rights for All campaign, ACLU volunteers can fight back.

There is no question that state legislators opposed to abortion rights, emboldened by Trump’s two appointments to the Supreme Court, are rushing to pass laws that blatantly violate more than four decades of Supreme Court precedent. But this bleak landscape for abortion access is not new (in fact, the most recent headline-grabbing bans are all being challenged in court and haven’t actually taken effect). Rather, it’s the result of a decades-long strategy to push abortion out of reach completely with laws designed to make it impossible for people to access care. 

Since 2011 alone, state legislatures have quietly passed more than 400 such medically unnecessary and politically motivated laws, shutting down clinics and erecting so many barriers to care that the right to abortion is now a hollow one for many people across vast areas of the country.

And this deliberate strategy by opponents of abortion rights — to push abortion further and further out of reach — actually got its start in Congress just a few years after Roe was decided. The Hyde Amendment was first attached to a federal appropriations bill in 1976 to withhold insurance coverage for abortion from those enrolled in Medicaid. There is no question that this was done explicitly to block low-income people from getting abortions: Congressman Hyde, the amendment’s sponsor, said so himself. In the years since, Congress has also restricted abortion coverage in a variety of other government health insurance plans and programs, and states have followed suit, passing their own laws restricting abortion coverage in both private and public insurance plans.

Coverage bans compound the effects of the many other types of abortion restrictions passed recently in the states — like clinic shutdown laws that force people to travel hundreds of miles for care and state-mandated waiting periods that add additional time and expense to their trips — to create obstacles that are insurmountable for many. When insurance coverage for abortion is denied, low-income people and disproportionately women of color are forced to forgo basic necessities in order to pay for the care they need. Ultimately, 1 in 4 Medicaid-eligible women seeking an abortion is denied care altogether.

Putting an end to this injustice means eliminating the many types of restrictions that limit abortion access, including the one that first targeted poor women more than four decades ago — the Hyde Amendment — and related government bans on insurance coverage of abortion.

That’s why ACLU volunteers around the country are asking presidential candidates, as part of our Rights for All 2020 effort, whether they will take a stand and lead the fight to ensure that everyone can access abortion care, no matter where they live or how much they make. As a matter of institutional policy, the ACLU does not support or oppose individual candidates for elected office. But we do want to ensure voters are informed and to see leaders elevate the civil liberties and civil rights issues that voters care about.

At campaign stops around the country, ordinary Americans are getting candidates on the record about their plans to guarantee abortion coverage and make the right to abortion a reality for all. When it comes to health insurance coverage, we are asking candidates to show leadership by guaranteeing that any health care plan they endorse will cover abortion and other reproductive health care just as it does other health care services, and by committing to remove all abortion coverage restrictions from budget requests, in order to send a clear message to Congress that abortion access is a top priority.

Candidates should also commit to working with Congress to pass and sign into law the EACH Woman Act, which would lift bans on abortion coverage in government insurance programs once and for all and also stop politicians from meddling with abortion coverage in private insurance plans. For those who want to ensure access to abortion, the EACH Woman Act should top the list of legislative priorities, along with the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would provide a much-needed federal safeguard against state abortion bans and other types of medically unnecessary restrictions in order to literally keep clinic doors open. Together, these bills could truly protect and expand access for people throughout the country.

With the right to abortion under direct attack in hostile states like never before, voters want to see real leadership on protecting abortion access for everyone, no matter where they live, how much they make, or what type of insurance they have. Rights for All will help ensure that voters know which candidates are up to that task.

Georgeanne M. Usova, ACLU Legislative Counsel

President Trump really, really doesn’t like the fact that congressional committees are investigating him. On Wednesday, he was so mad that he stormed out of a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about critically needed infrastructure legislation after only three minutes, much like the proverbial boy who takes the football home if he loses a disputed call.

Trump’s tantrum reflects the fact that the American people and their representatives are getting closer to seeing behind the curtain of secrecy that Trump has wrapped around his financial dealings — even where they implicate serious conflicts of interest prohibited by the Constitution’s ban on presidents accepting “emoluments,” or anything of value, from foreign or domestic government officials.

On Monday and Wednesday, federal judges in D.C. and New York rejected Trump’s efforts to block subpoenas aimed at uncovering his financial records. Also on Wednesday, the New York Legislature cleared the way to disclosing Trump’s state tax returns.

What President Trump objects to so strenuously is nothing more than what the framers of our Constitution demanded: a system of accountability. The framers intentionally designed our government so that exactly this would happen. They called it checks and balances, believing that the best way to rein in abuses of power is to divide authority among the three branches of the federal government, as well as among the federal and state governments, so that the different branches will work to keep each other in line.

During Trump’s first two years in office, the framers’ plan was largely foiled by one-party rule. Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the majority of the state legislatures, and a majority of the Supreme Court’s justices were Republican-appointees. And Republicans have shown little willingness to check this president. To date, Rep. Justin Amash is the only Republican member of Congress who has called out the president for the obstruction of justice so plainly detailed in the Mueller report. But in the midterms, the American people elected enough Democrats to flip control of the House of Representatives — and we are now seeing the separation of powers back in action. 

Trump is none too pleased. His first response was to stonewall on all subpoenas. He argued that House committees have no authority to investigate except where their investigation is tied to a specific piece of legislation. But that argument is dead wrong, and the federal courts have properly and resoundingly rejected it.

To do its job, Congress has to have broad investigative authority. It has to understand the scope of a problem before it can come up with a solution. Thus, when Facebook failed to protect the privacy of its users, Congress called in Mark Zuckerberg. When four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, were killed in Benghazi, Congress held hearings to review what happened. In the 1970s, when it appeared that the CIA and FBI were spying on civil rights and anti-war organizations, a Senate committee conducted a massive investigation. And when James Comey was fired, Congress called him in to testify.

None of these hearings was tied to a specific bill; they were designed to understand a problem in order to determine whether a legislative response was called for. 

Thus, as U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta explained in his ruling Monday rejecting Trump’s effort to block a subpoena of his financial records, the courts have long ruled that Congress has very broad authority to conduct investigations. First, it can investigate any subject as to which it might legislate, whether it ever in fact passes or even introduces legislation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has said, “the scope of the power of inquiry . . . is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.”

And second, it has an “informing” function, which authorizes it to, in the Supreme Court’s words, “inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in agencies of the Government.” The Supreme Court has cited Woodrow Wilson for the proposition that “it is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents.”

These authorities plainly cover investigations of Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Mueller investigation, potential conflicts of interest arising out of his past and present financial dealings, and his compliance — or lack thereof — with the tax code. So if the courts continue to do their job, Trump should be required to disclose much of what he has fought so long to keep from the public’s eyes — and that will then allow our representatives, and the people themselves, to decide on an appropriate response.

The ACLU, the nation’s oldest and largest constitutional rights organization, has always been committed to transparency, accountability, and checks and balances, precisely because we agree with the framers that these procedures safeguard liberty and constrain the abuse of government power. Since Trump has come into office, we’ve turned to the courts repeatedly to protect women’s reproductive rights, immigrants’ rights to due process, citizens’ voting rights, and everyone’s rights to privacy and liberty. The courts have played a critical part in maintaining the rule of law in the face of Trump’s excesses.

But we cannot rely exclusively on judges. Congress has an important checking function as well. And that can only operate if the president abides by basic norms of our Constitution — including that Congress has broad authority to investigate suspected abuse by the President himself.

This feature is part of the ACLU of Florida's "LGBTQ+ Youth Activist Project" commemorating Pride Month during the month of June.

Imagine a world where you have a hard say about how resources are allocated and what policies are prioritized – a world where, ultimately, you are free to be you.
 
That is the conversation we have with our youth members at Power U Center for Social Change (Power U). To all the inspiring young people I get to work with, and to all the young people I may never meet, I am encouraged watching your generation fight for a more just society. Many of our youth members face adversities and are directly impacted by structural racism, hetero-patriarchy and economic injustice. And in that struggle, they organize their communities, building a foundation for a better day and a better world. If you are one of them, when I see you, I appreciate that we are all connected, all fighting to exist in a world where we can be our full selves.

The teenage years and early 20s are complicated. It is a time when you are trying to figure out who you are and make sense of everything. It is confusing for anyone, especially in 2019 with ubiquitous, conflicting ­digital messages rapidly circling you. And when you are LGBTQ it can be even more complex, especially when no one around you seems to feel your struggle, when every heartbreak goes unseen, or when you are forced to choose between being true to yourself or compromising your dignity just to survive.
 
You are not alone. From as far back as I can remember, I have struggled with my gender identity. In the 90s and early aughts, terms like “trans” and “gender neutral” were not common. My sexual orientation never fit into the usual boxes. So much of my life has been spent just fighting to be me, without wanting to explain myself, just seeking to be understood. I spent years constructing explanations and tweaking labels for the sake of others’ understanding, exhausting myself in the process, when all along I knew what would complete me. Sound familiar?

There are others of us who never thought they would see the day when they could legally marry their life partner or safely express their gender without wanting to crawl out of their skin. That is progress. Yes, much is still at stake; we are still fighting for our rights. But we are making progress.

You have a right to be here! We are building power, organizing for a better world. It does exist. And you know what? There is a sense of relief in getting older. I know what I need and am comfortable in my body. And after what feels like nine lives, every day that I am here and that you are here — that we are here — is a win. Survival is a victory, when so much of what you see and hear is telling you to be someone else, and when statistically LGBTQ folks, especially trans women of color, are more likely to die by suicide or homicide.

You see? We are out here, making strides, in a world that often feels like it was not meant for us. It may not always be rainbows and unicorns. Shoot. I am 33, single, and trying to get pregnant with a sperm donor. Do I have doubt? Of course. However, despite my trials and tribulations, I also have hope that I will meet my mate when it is meant to be, and I have gratitude for the path that I am on.

You know what gives me that hope? You. It is because of you that I can be me; you are the change agents in this world. So remember that you do have community and don’t compare yourself to everyone else. Your journey is your own; it is unfolding. Hold your head up high and keep fighting for that better day and better world, because it was meant for you… all along.

Brax Tinkler, Operations & Development Director, Power U Center of Social Change