There is legislation being introduced in New Mexico that has profound possibilities of positively effecting the future of retail sales and privacy. New Mexico is the first state to consider such legislation. The bill is addressing the introduction to the retail enviroment of RFIDs-Radio Frequency Identification Devices. RFIDs are TINY chips that will soon be embedded in EVERY product you purchase. Similar to Bar Codes and UPCs, they will initially be promoted (by Walmart, etc.) to increase efficiency and productivity. They are already being used in warehouse situations and in tracking things on the battle field in Iraq. What is of concern for privacy in the future, is the ability these devices will give to retailers, insurance companies, credit card companies and the government to collect data on every purchase you make. These things will follow you home and sit on your shelves. Placed on a bottle of vodka, or aspirin or prescription medication, they could tell your health insurance company how frequently you finish that bottle or how many bags of chips you consumed in a period of time.
This GOOD legislation will require retailers to post a notice at the entrance of their stores that they are using this technology and require that the RFIDS be removed or deactivated as they leave the store. Eventualy, as you shop at Wal-Mart or where ever, with your shopping cart full of RFID’d products, you will simply push your cart out though a “reader” and your credit card will automatically be billed. Sounds cool and futuristic. It IS futuristic, but not cool. These RFIDs may be something you want placed in the ear lobe of your favorite pet or on the back side of your child’s tooth, but not on every single item sitting on your kitchen, pantry, bedroom or garage shelf. Please read the brief info. on it below and call ASAP. The legislation has been introduced. It is HB 215 and has been referred to House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee and then to House Judiciary Committee. If you have contacts in Silver City, they could contact Rep. Dianne Hamilton asking for her support. If you have contacts in Hobbs, they could contact Rep. Keith Gardner. They need to call (not enough time for writing)
CALL—505-986-4300. Regardless of where you live, please call YOUR legislator and voice your support for this legislation. New Mexico is the first state to introduce this consumer protection legislation and could be the model for this legislation around the country.
Thank, Dimid Hayes, Nova Brokers
Dimid Hayes
dimid@cnsp.com
—–
Track HB215
REMOVAL OF RADIO FREQUENCY ID TAGS
Sponsor: Mimi Stewart
Current Location: House Consumer & Public Affairs

HB 183: Genetic Privacy Act
would ban discrimination based on a person’s genetic code, (Representative Danice Picraux) effectively preventing employers from making hiring and promotion decisions on the basis of one’s genetic makeup.

Genetic Screening is the screening of individuals for abnormalities of inherited genetic traits. It is a procedure utilized by individuals, employers, and the government for a variety of purposes including assistance in making reproductive decisions and determining the need for medical treatment for newborns, making employment decisions and carrying out research in such areas as workplace safety and hazardous substances. The term genetic screening does not apply to the forensic use of genetic information ("genetic fingerprinting").

The confidentiality of the results of genetic screening raises important privacy concerns, which involve the potential abuses of the results of genetic screening, as well as the frequency with which certain genetic characteristics occur in discrete racial or ethnic groups.

It is a violation of civil liberties for employers to base employment related decisions upon genetic traits associated with a particular group (such as a particular race, religion, or sex) for several reasons. Employment decisions should be made on the basis of individual ability and character, not on the basis of stereotypes or generalizations about the groups to which an individual belongs. The fact that some, or even a majority, of the members of a particular group have a particular genetic trait does not mean that all members of the group have that trait.

Employment decisions based upon genetic traits of a particular race, religion, alienage, sex or other group invariably would have disparate impact upon the group. It is discriminatory for an employer to refuse to employ, to dismiss, or to affect adversely the terms and conditions of an individual’s employment on the basis of genetic information about the individual.
—–
Track HB183
PROTECTION OF GENETIC PRIVACY
Sponsor: Danice Picraux
Current Location: House Consumer & Public Affairs
—–

HB 215: Radio Frequency Identification Right to Know Act
(Representative Mimi Stewart)
would protect consumers’ privacy by requiring removal of radio frequency identification tags on consumer goods at point of purchase; also requiring limits on business release of nonpublic personal information.
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is an item-tagging technology with profound societal implications. Used improperly, RFID has the potential to jeopardize consumer privacy, reduce or eliminate purchasing anonymity, and threaten civil liberties.

What are RFID tags? Tiny computer chips connected to miniature antennae that can be affixed to physical objects. In the most commonly touted applications of RFID, the microchip contains an Electronic Product Code (EPC) with sufficient capacity to provide unique identifiers for all items produced worldwide. When an RFID reader emits a radio signal, tags in the vicinity respond by transmitting their stored data to the reader. With passive (battery-less) RFID tags, read-range can vary from less than an inch to 20-30 feet, while active (self-powered) tags can have a much longer read range. Typically, the data is sent to a distributed computing system involved in, perhaps, supply chain management or inventory control.

The developers of RFID technology envision a world where RFID readers form a “pervasive global network” It does not take a ubiquitous reader network to track objects or the people associated with them.
For example, when a consumer purchases a product with an EPC-compliant RFID tag, information about the consumer who purchased it could be added to the database automatically. Additional information could be logged in the file as the consumer goes about her business: “Entered the Atlanta courthouse at 12:32 PM,” “At Mobil Gas Station at 2:14 PM,” etc. Such data could be accessed by anyone with access to such a database, whether authorized or not.
—–
Track HB215
REMOVAL OF RADIO FREQUENCY ID TAGS
Sponsor: Mimi Stewart
Current Location: House Consumer & Public Affairs

SB 20: ELECTED OFFICIALS DRUG TESTING ACT

Randomly testing public officials for drugs threatens
Constitutional guarantees of privacy and free speech

No “probable cause”: A drug test is a high-tech variety of “search,” not unlike a police officer entering a home to hunt through a person’s belongings. To be constitutional, such a search requires evidence that gives “probable cause” to believe that the person has taken illegal substances. To conduct a search or drug test without meeting the probable cause standard would violate the 4th amendment guarantee that searches and seizures be “reasonable.”

No “special need”: The courts have allowed government-sponsored random drug testing under very narrow circumstances—specifically, where drugs or alcohol could impair an individual’s ability to perform a job that directly implicates the public’s health or safety (e.g., bus drivers, operators of heavy machinery). Absent such “special needs” (or probable cause) no legitimate interest is served by broadly testing people.

Privacy under the 14th Amendment: Although SB 20 describes the proposed drug tests as “voluntary,” legislators effectively would be forced to submit to testing under the threat that their written reasons for refusing to take tests would otherwise be broadcast on a public website. This raises a second privacy concern that legislators would be compelled to disclose private reasons for not wanting to have the results of a drug test publicly aired. Drug tests would reveal the presence of most any foreign chemicals, including drugs that the legislator may be taking for legitimate medical reasons, and that he or she would not want revealed to the government, much less the public at large.

A survey by the National Institute of Drug Abuse found that 20 percent of the labs surveyed mistakenly reported the presence of illegal drugs in drug-free urine samples. Unreliability also stems from the tendency of drug screens to confuse similar chemical compounds. For example, codeine and Vicks Formula 44-M have been known to produce positive results for heroin, Advil for marijuana, and Nyquil for amphetamines.

Coerced speech: The 1st Amendment not only prohibits the government from censoring speech, but it also prohibits the government from forcing speech. The requirement that legislators divulge, in written form, their reasons for refusing to submit to a drug test would violate this principle.

Political retaliation: Although SB 20 describes the selection of legislators for drug testing as “random,” it would effectively empower the Secretary of State to target political officials who are of the “wrong” political persuasion or oppose legislation favored by the Secretary of State. This raises a secondary free speech concern that legislators would be censored by fear of political retaliation.

The ACLU of New Mexico believes that SB 20, if written into law, would be vulnerable to challenges under the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments, as well as parallel provisions under the New Mexico State Constitution.
—–
Track SB20
ELECTED OFFICIAL DRUG TESTING ACT
Sponsor: Steve Komadina
Current Location: Senate Rules Committee

Contact your legislators to support SB103. Senator Richard Martinez is introducing the bill with co-sponsors:

Sen Ben Altamirano, Sen Pete Campos, Sen Carlos Cisneros, Sen Mary Jane Garcia, Sen. Phil Griego, Sen Linda Lopez, Sen Lidio Rainaldi and Sen. Nancy Rodriguez.

Call the Roundhouse 505.986.4300.

SB103 will be heard in the Senate Public Affairs Committee at 9:00 a.m. Friday morning in room 321 of the Roundhouse.

For more information on SB103, review the 2005 legislative section of this website.

Joyce Briscoe
—–
Track SB103
LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS
Sponsor: Richard C. Martinez
Current Location: Senate Judiciary Committee

Marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is a civil right

1. Marriage is a commitment. It is about sharing, love, trust, and compromise. Two adults who make this personal choice to form a life-long commitment should not be denied the right to marry just because they are gay or lesbian.

2. Gay and lesbian Americans are American citizens who pay taxes and protect our communities as fire fighters, police officers, and by serving in the military, and therefore desire the same rights and protections as other Americans.

3. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry takes away legal rights in pensions, health insurance, hospital visitations, and inheritance that other long-term committed couples enjoy. We should end this discrimination.

4. Today we look back, almost disbelieving, on the time when many Americans did not tolerate marriage between Catholics and Protestants, or between blacks and whites. Unfortunately, our laws continue to deny the right to marry to adults just because they are gay or lesbian.

5. We are not asking people to change their religious beliefs. There are many things about modern society that religious organizations do not endorse. For example, we did not ask the Catholic church or other religions to accept divorce or birth control when they became legal in this country.

Federal Marriage Amendment

1. The federal marriage amendment is messing with the Constitution. It is unnecessary, unwise, and political.

2. With all the many problems that Congress needs to address, it is unbelievable that some in Congress are spending time and resources to amend the U.S. Constitution to make a pronouncement about marriage.

3. The U.S. Constitution is not the place to change morality every time someone in Congress has an idea about what the morality should be.

4. This Amendment takes away existing legal protections, under state and local laws, for committed, long-term couples, such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, pension benefits, and health insurance coverage among others.

Voter Photo Identification Requirements
Barrier to Voting

 Disenfranchisement As with the other methods of disenfranchisement in our history, such as literacy test and poll taxes, the photo identification requirement would present another barrier to voting and have a chilling effect on voter participation. There are voters who simply do not have identification and requiring them to purchase identification would be tantamount to requiring them to pay a poll tax.

Financial means A disproportionate number of racial and ethnic minority voters, seniors, homeless people, as well as voters with disabilities, do not have identification or the financial means to acquire it.

 Undue and potentially discriminatory burden The Federal Elections Commission noted in its 1997 report to Congress that photo identification entails major expenses, both initially and in maintenance, and presents an undue and potentially discriminatory burden on citizens in exercising their basic right to vote.

 Photo identification requirements present obstacles for our country’s youngest voters, students. At least 1.5 million college students are currently attending school out-of-state and many of them do not have documentation or a photo ID that displays a local address. Many students have numerous roommates and move multiple times during the course of their college career which makes it difficult to have photo identification with a current address.

Beyond this, many students live in dormitories or room with others and have no utility bill in their name. Voter participation among young adults is already low and has steadily declined since 1972. Imposing additional barriers could further decrease student participation in the political process.

 Only 7 cases of voter registration fraud were prosecuted in the last 10 years. While it has been suggested that the purpose for imposing identification requirements is to ensure integrity in the voting process, there has been no evidence to suggest that voter fraud is a national problem that merits federal legislation. According to statistics from the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice only 7 cases of voter registration fraud were prosecuted in the last 10 years. No cases were brought in the seven years following the passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

[mjh: Use the following link for information on the New Mexico State Legislature, including searching for bills.]

Welcome to the New Mexico Legislature Web Site

Rally celebrates Roe v. Wade ruling by Xochitl Campos, Daily Lobo

Giovanna Rossi, the executive director of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Pro-Choice New Mexico, said it is important that abortion rights supporters in New Mexico show their support for this issue. …

Two laws will be proposed in the 2005 legislative session.

One in the House of Representatives, Bill 111, sponsored by Larry A. Larranaga, is known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. It would make abortion illegal and punishable as voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child if performed.
—
[mjh: I couldn’t find any articles on the rally in the Albuquerque Journal or Tribune.]

On the 32nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade: A Question of Whose Moral Values

January 21, 2005

by Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project

Louise Melling

PRESS

Broad Coalition of Advocates Implores U.S. Department of Justice to Add Pregnancy Prevention to National Protocol for Treating Rape Survivors

RELATED FACT SHEETS

Abstinence-Only Education

Public Funding for Abortion

Laws Restricting Teenagers’ Access to Abortion

Keep on Marching: What You Can Do To Protect Reproductive Freedom

CONGRESSIONAL UPDATES

On Roe’s 32nd Anniversary, Anti-Choice Gains
in the Senate Create New Challenges for Reproductive Freedom

Following one of the closest and most contentious elections in recent memory, pundits across the country identified “moral values” as the social fault line dividing America. Two and half months later, as President Bush begins his second term and as we celebrate the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade – the landmark Supreme Court decision recognizing abortion as largely a private matter – we would do well to revisit the question of abortion and more broadly of women’s reproductive health care and ask, “Whose moral values?” For just as reproductive health care is much broader than abortion, the assaults on reproductive rights reach far and wide and play no part in a moral nation.

What is moral, for example, about spending millions of taxpayer dollars on programs that deny teens who become sexually active the information they need to protect themselves from pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection? Since 1997, Congress has allocated well over half a billion dollars for sex education programs that exclusively focus on abstinence and censor information that can help young people make responsible and healthy decisions. There is no conclusive evidence that these programs work, though there is evidence that they deter sexually active teens from using appropriate protection. How is it moral to deny teens information that can help prevent pregnancy and save lives?

What is moral about denying a rape victim assistance to prevent a pregnancy resulting from an assault? A recent study published by the American Civil Liberties Union shows that in 8 out of 11 states, less than 40 percent of emergency-care facilities regularly provide emergency contraception (EC) on-site to rape survivors. EC is the form of birth control which when taken within days of unprotected intercourse reduces the risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent. If emergency facilities offered EC, up to 22,000 pregnancies that result each year from rape could be prevented. Yet, in releasing the first-ever national protocol for treating sexual assault victims, President Bush’s Justice Department excluded any mention of EC. Whose moral values are served by denying rape victims the option of preventing pregnancy?

What is moral about denying a pregnant woman coverage for an abortion her doctor says she needs to protect her health? Medicaid, the federally funded health services program for the poor, does exactly that. While providing coverage for a range of medically necessary services, the government limits abortion coverage to cases where a woman’s pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or if her life is in jeopardy. It will not pay for an abortion if a woman’s health is threatened. What is moral about forcing a poor woman to choose between paying for an abortion she needs to preserve her health and paying for food, shelter, and other basic necessities for her family?

Indeed, what is moral about forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy when she is unable to care for a child? When she doesn’t feel ready to become a parent? When she wants to finish high school? The underlying question in all of the above scenarios is: What is moral about the government interfering in one of the most private decisions a person can make – whether or not to have children? Most Americans believe that abortion should remain legal. Almost all of us can identify circumstances in which we believe abortion is a moral choice, and other circumstances in which it is not. When is abortion moral for you? That is the private question. The public question is: Who will draw the line?

The ACLU’s report, Preventing Pregnancy after Rape, is available online.

Within the first week of the 2005 New Mexico Legislative Session, Senator Richard Martinez introduced SB 103: No State Funding for Civil Federal Immigration Law Enforcement. This bill would prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from detecting or apprehending persons who violate Federal Immigration Law.

A statewide coalition of organizations, law enforcement, and public officials are in support of SB 103:

Organizations

ACLU-NM
ACORN
Albuquerque Rape Crisis Center
Catholic Archdiocese of New Mexico
Catholic Charities of Central New Mexico
Community Health partnership
COPE, Inc.
Enlace Comunitario
Esperanza Shelter For Battered Families
Home for Women and Children
NM Center On Law and Povery
New Mexico Municipal League
Peanut Butter and Jelly
Roswell Refuge for Battered Adults
Somos un Pueblo Unido
STOP Coalition
The Healing House

Law Enforcement

Espanola Chief of Police, Richard Guillen
New Mexico Municipal Chiefs of Police Association
Santa Fe Chief of Police, Beverly Lennen
—
[track SB103 LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS sponsored by Richard C. Martinez]

ACLU-NM’s Board of Directors has seven (7) positions open for election in 2005.

All members in good standing of the ACLU-NM are invited to run for election. Board member serve terms of 3 years.

Candidates may be nominated by the nominating committee or by petition of any ten affiliate members or any chapter board of directors, provided there is attached to such petition a signed statement expressing the nominee’s willingness to serve if elected, and provided such petition is filed with the affiliate office not later than February 4, 2005.

To be nominated, candidates must submit statements of qualification and interest for publication in the affiliate newsletter, the Torch, no later than 5:00 pm on January 28, 2005 to: ACLU-NM, P.O. Box 80915, Albuquerque, NM 87198. Or fax to 505-266-5916.

Please limit your statement to about 250 words.

Espanola Town Hall

When: Wednesday January 12th from 7-9 pm

Where: Mision Convento located on 601 Bond Street, Espanola (next to the post office)

What: New Mexicans oppose state funding for civil federal immigration law. Let’s pass this legislation at the State level! At the Town Hall we will hear Senator Martinez and other speakers discuss this important issue.

Background: In 2004, a coalition of New Mexican organizations, community members, and public officials passed municipal resolutions in Albuquerque and Santa Fe against funding civil federal immigration law enforcement. In New Mexico, Sheriff Darren White, the NM Sheriff’s and Police Association, the Albuquerque Chapter Hispanic American Police Commander Officer’s Association, and the Chicano Police Officer’s Association are on record stating their opposition to the proposed federal CLEAR Act which if passed, would have required state and local police to do the work of federal immigration officers.

For More Information: 505-266-5915

Broad Coalition of Advocates Implores U.S. Department of Justice to Add Pregnancy Prevention to National Protocol for Treating Rape Survivors

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, January 6, 2005

CONTACT: Lorraine Kenny, ACLU
212-549-2634 or lkenny@aclu.org

WASHINGTON – A broad coalition of sexual assault groups, medical professionals, religious leaders, and advocates for women’s health and rights sent a letter today to the U.S. Department of Justice urging it to amend the first-ever national protocol for treating sexual assault survivors to include information about preventing pregnancy.

“The failure to include a specific discussion of emergency contraception in the first national protocol for sexual assault treatment is a glaring omission in an otherwise thorough document. Including counseling about pregnancy prevention and the provision of emergency contraception would help rape victims prevent unintended pregnancies, avoid abortions, and safeguard their mental health,” today’s letter argues.

“It is time for policymakers to stop heartlessly ignoring the needs of sexual assault patients,” said Louise Melling, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “Emergency contraception is a safe and effective solution to a pressing health care need. There is no excuse for not doing whatever we can to ensure that women can prevent pregnancy.”

The Department of Justice released the 130-page national protocol for treating sexual assault patients at the end of last year. As today’s letter notes, “despite recognizing that pregnancy is ‘often an overwhelming and genuine fear’ of sexual assault victims, the Protocol includes only a single, vague sentence on pregnancy prevention. . . . [And] nowhere does [it] mention emergency contraception or recommend that it be offered to sexual assault victims.”

In a recently released briefing paper, Preventing Pregnancy after Rape: Emergency Care Facilities Put Women at Risk, the American Civil Liberties Union found that in eight out of eleven states studied, fewer than 40 percent of emergency care facilities routinely provide emergency contraception on-site to rape survivors. The results varied from a low of 6 percent of facilities in Louisiana and 8 percent in Idaho to 28 percent in New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to a high of 80 percent in New Hampshire and 85 percent in New York.

If emergency care facilities routinely provided emergency contraception, up to 22,000 pregnancies that result from rape each year could be prevented, according to researchers at Princeton University and University of California.

Major medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, recommend that emergency contraception be offered to all sexual assault victims at risk of pregnancy.

Today’s letter is signed by 206 national, state, and local organizations, as well as 71 individuals. These include the America College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Public Health Association, the American Medical Women’s Association, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, emergency department nurses and doctors, the Episcopal Church USA, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, and several state sexual assault coalitions.

The national protocol “has the potential to fill [an] information void at many hospitals and to ensure appropriate treatment for sexual assault patients. To do this effectively, however, the Protocol must be revised to include an explicit discussion of emergency contraception,” today’s letter concludes.

Emergency contraception, often referred to as “the morning after pill,” reduces the risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent if the first dose is taken within days of unprotected intercourse, but it is more effective the sooner it is taken.

A copy of today’s letter to the Department of Justice is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=17275&c=30.