ACLU-NJ News - Reproductive Freedom

The 'No' Heard Round New Jersey

Last week, a radio host asked Governor Chris Christie this question:

"Will there be money restored for family planning in New Jersey?" The Governor answered in one word: "No."

The legislature is expected to pass a bill today distributing $7.5 million to family planning centers in the state, but they barely have any say - it effectively has already been vetoed. Let your legislators know: you must override the governor's anticipated veto. Take action at

The governor's "no" to funding family planning centers (which provide low-cost birth control and medical treatment for women) sent a shockwave that resounded across New Jersey:

"No" to independent decision-making

Women who can't afford the expense of a baby, teenagers who aren't ready to have children, and mothers who can't handle another child or are finished raising kids will have fewer resources for birth control. And even though the governor knows well that this funding does not support abortion services, he doesn't care.

"No" to curbing cancer

Taking away this funding will impede the fight against cancer. You don't have to take the ACLU's word for it - you can take the word of the New Jersey government. The state health department has two main solutions for fighting cervical cancer: improving access to pap smears and increasing the HPV vaccine, which prevents women from getting the strains of the virus that cause most cervical cancers. Chris Christie has instead chosen to diminish access to screening.

"No" to alleviating New Jersey's financial woes

In the interview Tuesday, Christie explained:

"I don't believe that that is a priority in a budget where you have to cut 11 billion dollars."

The governor can't hide behind the budget as an excuse. Governor Christie in fact failed to renew an application to receive matching funds from the federal government, which would have provided nine dollars for every dollar New Jersey spent on family planning. If New Jersey had applied for that federal waiver, that funding would have been an investment in women with guaranteed returns. Now, the calculation is simple: zero.

Family planning services save the state money. Every dollar spent on family planning saves four dollars in Medicaid expenses.

"No" to the lives of women who need testing and treatment most

As of 2004, out of every 100,000 African-American women, 14.1 will develop cervical cancer. For white women, that number is 9 out of every 100,000. The numbers for mortality are even more sobering: out of 100,000 white women in the state, 2.3 will die of cervical cancer. For African-American women, the number who will die is 6.2.

The New Jersey health department said it best: "Women at the highest risk for cervical cancer are least likely to utilize screening." And they're also the most likely to feel the pain of these cuts personally.

"No" to common sense

"No woman is not going to get health care because of this," Christie said.

If family planning centers close, it will be harder for women to find a place they can afford or a way to get there. Family planning centers are the only options some women have.

"No" to women's opinions

When asked why family planning wasn't a priority he said, "Because that's my opinion. And it's the opinion obviously of the majority of the people who deliberated on this or it would have changed."

It's not the opinion of the women deliberating on their lives.

Share your opinion right now about Governor Christie's poor choices on women's health, and ask your legislators to override the veto. Take action at

Watch Chris Christie explain in an interview last week why he believes women's health is not a priority in New Jersey. He delivers his blows to women's health between minutes 21 and 23 of this video -- posted on ustream.tv: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7851633

ACLU-NJ Celebrates 50 Years on the Front Lines of Freedom

Newark, N.J. - For five decades, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey has been a gale force in the most critical social debates of our time and a vigilant guardian of civil rights for all.

In June, the ACLU-NJ will mark the 50th anniversary of its founding and celebrate its standing as one of the largest and most active affiliates in the nation. Created to counter the growing pressures on civil liberties in the state, the affiliate's first official meeting took place on the night of June 16, 1960. Since its start, the affiliate, which has continued to keep its headquarters in Newark, has seen its membership multiply nearly 10-fold, from 1,600 people to more than 15,000.

"We believe that the liberties in the Bill of Rights belong to every American, to all the people in New Jersey regardless of their political beliefs, race, religion or national origin," ACLU-NJ founder and longtime President Emil Oxfeld said in the original press release announcing the formation of the state's affiliate. "We believe these freedoms must be exercised if democracy in our state is to grow and thrive."

Oxfeld went on to list issues that desperately needed attention at the time - due process, racial discrimination, the separation of church and state, and freedom from censorship - all principles the ACLU still defends daily.

"While some of the issues raised in our cases over the years seem archaic by today's standards, many haven't changed at all," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs, who has led the affiliate since 1999, including during the biggest membership spike in its history. "The law has advanced remarkably in areas like women's rights, lesbian and gay rights, and safeguarding personal privacy, but with issues like free speech, police practices and religious freedom, no fight ever stays won."

"The ACLU of New Jersey has been a leader in the crucial civil liberties battles of our time," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the national ACLU. "While each new era brings a wave of assaults on freedom, the ACLU of New Jersey responds swiftly and decisively, protecting the rights of all Garden State residents. It has proven its value on the American political landscape."

Since opening its doors and springing into action - its first official undertaking was commending the Clifton Library's stance against banning books like Lady Chatterley's Lover - the ACLU-NJ has doggedly worked for justice and equality in New Jersey.

In its first decade the ACLU-NJ took strong action following the 1967 Newark Rebellion. Staffers took to the streets in the aftermath, painstakingly cataloguing police abuses to the ACLU-NJ would refer to in its demands for reform. The New Jersey affiliate also emerged even more progressive than the national ACLU, becoming one of the first state affiliates to take a stand against the Vietnam War.

Since those early years, the ACLU-NJ has grown into one of the country's largest and most active state affiliates, with a record of milestones that has earned it a role on the national stage. Among its accomplishments, the ACLU-NJ:

Defended the rights of women in schools, from a tennis star (represented by Ruth Bader Ginsburg) who won the right to play on the high school boys' tennis team, to the Princeton student who turned its Ivy League all-male eating clubs co-ed.
Blocked a bill requiring a "one-minute period of silence" for prayer in public schools in 1983.
Defended 12 motorists who had been racially profiled on the New Jersey Turnpike in the late 1990s.
Propelled New Jersey to become the first state in the nation to grant equal standing to gay and lesbian couples jointly adopting in 1997.
Successfully challenged the state's ban on late-term abortion in 1998 and a law requiring parents to sign off on a minor's abortion in 2000.
Challenged secret detentions and organized locally, fending off attempts to chip away at individual rights following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Defeated local laws written to exclude immigrants from housing, won humane working conditions for immigrants, and helped enforce the rights of young immigrants to attend public school.
Established stronger First Amendment protections in schools and malls, as well as developments run by homeowners associations.

The ACLU-NJ is celebrating the clients, attorneys, leaders and volunteers - many involved in the cases highlighted above - who have built its legacy, from its founders to its future. The stories of these 50 Faces of Liberty can be found at the ACLU-NJ website, http://www.aclu-nj.org

"Society has changed dramatically since our founding, but we've never lost the fire that fuels the ACLU's advocacy," Jacobs added. "We can't always predict what challenges lie ahead for liberty in a changing world, but whatever they are, the ACLU stands ready to defend the fundamental rights of ordinary Americans."

The year-long commemoration will culminate November 4 at the NJ Freedom Fest: A night of laughter and liberties, hosted by comedian Jimmy Tingle and featuring faces from the ACLU past and present, to be held at the Heldrich Hotel in New Brunswick.

For the 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade: Change

Today, on the 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we usher in an extraordinary moment of hope and opportunity. For the first time, we have elected an African American president in an election that inspired Americans across the spectrum: young and old, men and women, rich and poor, Democrats and Republicans, and people of all colors and faiths. Many were moved by Barack Obama's call for a new conversation about race, democracy and the aspirations to a greater good for us all. This new conversation holds great promise for reproductive rights.

In the days following President Obama's inauguration, it is tempting to use this Roe anniversary to make demands for policies we want from our new administration: rescinding the global gag rule, restoring affordable birth control at college health centers and reversing the Bush administration's midnight rule allowing a broad range of health care providers to refuse basic reproductive health services.

But we're asking for more than policy change. We want the conversation to change. Political winds may shift regarding one particular policy or another, but access to basic, safe reproductive health care must remain constant in the United States, no matter the administration, and no one should be afraid to talk about it.

Everyone's story is different, and we form our beliefs on reproductive issues for different reasons and from different experiences. Each woman has her own history, her own life circumstances, her own health issues, her own dreams and desires, her own vision of how she can make the world a better place. Many care for children, elderly parents, or other loved ones in need.

I hope this moment brings with it a new sense of openness regarding women's reproductive health care in America. Abortions have been out of back alleys for decades, and the discussion shouldn't have to retreat there.

Through my work, I am privileged to hear the personal stories of many women who have had to make some of the most difficult decisions of their lives. Even if some of us disagree on the issue of abortion, most of us can agree that the life-altering decisions involved are private, personal ones we must be able to make based on our own circumstances, beliefs and values. It is neither my place nor our government's to make such an important life decision for someone else.

We may have different stories, but we hold common hopes "We may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction -- towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren," President Obama said in his March 2008 speech on race in Philadelphia.

While each woman's path is different, I am most struck by what we all have in common. All of us care about living the fullest lives possible and doing our best for the people we love. When we bring children into the world we want them to have the same opportunity to live full lives. And we want to build a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

Abortion and reproductive freedom are important pieces of ensuring this common dream. To create a better future, we each must have the freedom to make profoundly personal decisions about our lives without unwarranted government intrusion. As with all freedoms, there are limits. But a government that respects the integrity of its people both interferes as little as possible in these essentially private decisions and helps ensure that everyone has the information and opportunity to make these decisions responsibly.

We can continue with the politics of abortion we have known for a generation -- unconscionably leveraging fear, exploiting the very difficulty of the decision itself for political gain and preying on women by cultivating a sense of shame surrounding the issue. Or we can learn from the past year and seize this moment of hope.

Let's start a new conversation, one that begins with the understanding that both the decision to have a child and the decision to have an abortion come from a place of profound respect for the value of life and a strong commitment to ensuring a better life for all.

By Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.

NJ AG and ACLU File Suits Against Health Care Denial Rule

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey applauded New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram for signing onto a lawsuit challenging the Bush administration's Health Care Denial Rule on the same day the national ACLU announced a separate lawsuit on behalf of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) against the same rule. The rule, promulgated in the last throes of the Bush administration, allows a broad range of health care workers to refuse to provide health services, even in emergencies.

"The attorneys general play a critical role in fighting this rule, and we applaud Anne Milgram's initiative to step into the fray as the ACLU has," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Edward Barocas. "The federal government has always been able to balance both patients' rights and the personal beliefs of medical professionals, and this rule is the Bush administration's way of toppling the balance away from patients' needs. This rule puts access to contraception in jeopardy and leaves women in a medical limbo where they have to question whether they'll get the services they need in time, if at all."

In addition to the ACLU's lawsuit on behalf of NFPRHA and the lawsuit brought by the six states' attorneys general led by Connecticut and including New Jersey, a third lawsuit was filed today by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America with Planned Parenthood of Connecticut.

As stated in today's legal papers, the rule significantly undermines the ability of millions of women and men in the United States to access essential family planning, reproductive and other health care services and information. It expressly permits a broad range of health care workers and facilities to refuse to provide services, information, and counseling, potentially even in emergency situations. At the same time, it fails to require refusing providers to either notify their employers or their patients of their objections to providing care.

"Experts, medical professionals and the patients whose rights this rule limits all agree that this policy will endanger lives and sacrifice patients' individual liberties," Barocas added. "The Bush administration should be ashamed that it spent its last months slipping in last-minute policies that put Americans' health at risk."

During a 30-day comment period, HHS received more than 200,000 responses. The overwhelming majority opposed the rule, including major medical associations such as the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, women's health organizations, members of Congress, state governors and attorneys general, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, religious advocates, and the general public.

The final rule fails to address many of the concerns raised in these comments, including whether the rule prevents states from enforcing their own laws enacted to protect access to reproductive health care, whether the rule allows providers to refuse care even in emergency situations, and whether women seeking family planning services at federally funded health centers are still assured counseling for abortion care if they request it.

The Department of Health and Human Services promulgated the rule on December 19, 2008.

The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association is a vital membership organization representing the nation's dedicated family planning providers-including state, county, and local health departments; family planning councils; hospital-based clinics; and other private nonprofit family planning organizations and providers.

The ACLU's complaint is available at: http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/38321lgl20090115.html

'Abstinence Only' Policy Puts Teens at Risk

This video features
interviews with ACLU staff
from across the
organization concerning
the role of reproductive
freedom in ensuring the
full-range of civil
liberties.

The following op-ed appeared in The Star Ledger on January 22, 2008. It was written by ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs.

Thirty-five years after the Roe vs. Wade decision, while control over women's bodies still gets hurled around like a political football, one thing we should all rally around is working to minimize unintended pregnancies.

Each year in the United States, nearly 750,000 teenagers 15 to 19 become pregnant. Unintended pregnancy has a profound impact on women and girls, imperiling their education, narrowing their future employment opportunities and limiting their long-term earning potential.

Society pays as well. The federal government alone spends $9 billion annually to help families that began with a teenage birth.

Sadly, many women -- especially poor women and teenagers -- still lack the basic education and access to reproductive health care that can reduce unintended pregnancies as well as life-threatening sexually transmitted diseases.

Yet, instead of promoting comprehensive sex education, the federal government aggressively funds "abstinence-only until marriage" programs that fail teenagers by withholding information they need to make healthy, mature decisions about sex.

To receive federal funding, abstinence-only programs must have the "exclusive purpose" of teaching the benefits of abstinence. They may not advocate contraceptive use or teach contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates.

Thus, recipients of federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funds operate under a gag rule that censors vitally needed information. Grantees are forced to omit any mention of topics such as contraception, abortion and AIDS or to present them in an incomplete and therefore inaccurate fashion.

In fiscal year 2006, the federal government lavished $3.6 million in grants on New Jersey organizations to deliver abstinence-only programs to students and young people. Nationwide, some $87.5 million is spent annually on abstinence- only programs, most of it taxpayers' dollars.

At best, it is money wasted.

A recent study conducted for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services by Mathematica Policy Research, a leading sexual health researcher, found that teens who participated in these programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not. Worse yet, other studies have shown that teens in some abstinence-only programs are less inclined to use contraception once they do have sex.

Abstinence-only programs also conflict with New Jersey's well-regarded comprehensive core curriculum for sex education. Recognizing this, in 2006 the Corzine administration wisely declined to reapply for the portion of federal abstinence-only funding distributed by the state. The state's letter declining the funding pointed out that because of contradictions between the state and the federal government approaches, New Jersey schools might need to add class time simply to correct inaccuracies included in abstinence-only programs.

Though more than a dozen other states have similarly rejected abstinence-only funding, state control over this aspect of public education is strictly limited: Most of the money goes directly from the federal government to the community organizations that conduct the programs in schools.

Cash-strapped school systems like Newark public schools, long straining to overcome immense educational and economic hardships, are all too willing to let these federally funded programs into their classrooms, and it's teens who pay the price.

With one of the highest teen pregnancy rates and lowest graduation rates in the nation, Newark teenagers desperately need quality, comprehensive sex education so they are as prepared as possible to make smart decisions about sexual activity, including when to say no and when to use contraception.

Despite this, the Newark public schools allow the Several Sources Foundation into health classes once a week to present a program called "The Choice Game," a nine- week curriculum that never mentions condoms and that awards students a sterling silver ring in ex change for pledging to remain abstinent until marriage.

If the stakes weren't so high, it would be hard to take "The Choice Game" seriously; evidently, few other New Jersey school districts do. Montclair doesn't have the program in its schools and neither does Millburn, Maplewood-South Orange, Elizabeth or Plainfield.

In fact, I don't know of any other New Jersey school district that is so desperate for grant money or free "teaching" that it will subject its students to this ineffective, insidious program that can threaten students' health and futures.

"The Choice Game" and similar abstinence-only programs illustrate a larger point -- namely, that the young people of Newark and elsewhere deserve the kind of information that will help them endure, thrive and, in some cases, survive to adulthood. They deserve equal access to objective, relevant and medically accurate sex education.

After all, choice isn't a game.

Additional Information

How Far Women Have Come Since Roe v. Wade (2008)

How Far Women Have Come Since Roe v. Wade

This video features
interviews with ACLU staff
from across the
organization concerning
the role of reproductive
freedom in ensuring the
full-range of civil
liberties.

The following op-ed appeared in the Bergen Record on January 22, 2008. It was written by ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs.

The strides made by women in New Jersey politics have recently made headlines

Come election day, abortion will likely be on voters' minds as candidates pull out the abortion card to cast aspersions on their opponents or stake claim to a constituency. Some voters will vote for or against candidates because of their position on the issue. Few, however, will consider what is really at stake in the abortion question: women's equality.

Roe v. Wade turns 35 today. With this anniversary we mark not only 35 years of reproductive freedom, but 35 years of impressive gains in the fight for women's equality.

Granted, these were not perfect years. Not all women have had equal access to reproductive health care: Poor women, teens and women living in rural communities have increasingly faced real obstacles because of government restrictions. Likewise, not all women have benefited equally in the expansion of women's access to higher education, better paying jobs or other socioeconomic gains.

And as with the fight for reproductive freedom, the struggle for women's equality is far from over.

Nevertheless, these decades have witnessed important advances for many women. The numbers alone tell a significant piece of the story: Thirty-five years ago, there were 15 women in Congress. Today, 92 women sit in Congress, including the first Madame Speaker.

In 1973, the number of women who had ever been governor totaled three. As of today, 26 women have served as governor.

And in the race for president, for the first time in our nation's history, a woman is one of the leading contenders for the nomination of a major political party.

Grand progress statewide

The strides made by women in New Jersey politics have recently made headlines, with the proportion of women in our state Legislature climbing to 15th in the nation, up from 43rd in 2004. The nine women in the Senate and 25 in the Assembly elected in November constitute 28 percent of the 120-member Legislature.

The political arena has not been alone in this transformation. Women make up 57 percent of college students (up from 42 percent in 1970) and are obtaining advanced degrees in record numbers. In the mid-Seventies, women made up only 16 percent of medical school graduates; today they constitute nearly 50 percent. Likewise, women holding science and engineering doctoral degrees have more than quadrupled since the late Sixties.

The ranks of female Fortune 500 CEOs have grown from one in 1973 to 10 in 2006.

The timing of these advances is not serendipitous. At the core of women's equality is the ability to control whether and when we have children. The legalization of contraception in the Sixties and abortion in the Seventies fostered women's ability to make important life decisions about themselves and their families.

This fact is not lost on the only two women ever to serve on the Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor co-authored an opinion preserving Roe in 1992 that acknowledged, "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives."

And just last year, in a powerful dissent to a Supreme Court decision upholding the first-ever federal ban on certain abortion procedures, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passionately argued that the core of the right to abortion "center[s] on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature."

Connection lost

Yet, as we mark the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the connection between reproductive rights and gender equality is lost in the political wrangling over abortion.

It is time to step back and reexamine the role access to birth control and abortion plays not only in opening up the classrooms, boardrooms and legislatures to women, but to ensuring women's equality more broadly.

It is time to refocus the conversation on fairness and opportunity so that we all can make meaningful decisions about whether and when to bear children.

The political, economic and social life of our democracy depends on it.

Additional Information

'Abstinence Only' Policy Puts Teens at Risk (2008)

ACLU Applauds Governor Corzine's Signing of Pharmacy Bill

TRENTON, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today applauded Governor Jon Corzine's decision to sign a bill into law that will help ensure women's ability to access birth control at the pharmacy. The bill, sponsored by Senator Fred Madden and Assemblywoman Linda Stender, makes New Jersey one of a handful of states to protect patient's ability to access prescriptions at the pharmacy.

"Today's law strikes an important balance between protecting patient's health and religious freedom," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the ACLU-NJ.

The pharmacy access law requires pharmacies to fill prescriptions for in-stock drugs or devices without undue delay, despite the sincerely held moral, philosophical or religious beliefs of an individual pharmacist. Pharmacies employing pharmacists who object to filling prescriptions can accommodate the objection so long as the pharmacy ensures that customers receive their prescriptions, including birth control, at the pharmacy without undue delay.

"Access to safe and effective contraception is a central component of basic health care for women," said Jacobs. "This law will go a long way toward ending sex discrimination at the pharmacy."

The ACLU's long-held advocacy for both reproductive rights and religious liberty uniquely positions the organization to address this issue. In April, the ACLU released a report, "Religious Refusals and Reproductive Rights: Accessing Birth Control at the Pharmacy," which examines legal questions raised when a pharmacist or pharmacy refuses to provide contraception based on a religious objection.

The report is available online at: http://tinyurl.com/2pms2q

Abortion Rights: Where Do We Go From Here?

Abortion Rights:

Where Do We Go From Here?

A discussion of the impact of the recent
Supreme Court decision on the future of abortion rights
and strategies for supporters of women's choice.

A panel discussion featuring:

Lisa Quackenbush
Past Chair, Reproductive Rights Task Force
National Organization for Women, New Jersey
Caitlin Borgmann
Board Trustee, Reproductive Freedom Activist, Law Professor
American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey
Phyllis Kinsler
President/CEO
Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey

Thursday, September 20, 7:30 pm

Rutgers University
Ruth Dill Johnson Crockett Building - Center for Women's Programs
162 Ryders Lane, Room 104
New Brunswick, NJ 08901

Sponsors:
Middlesex County National Organization for Women (NOW)
Rutgers Department of Women's and Gender Studies
American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

ACLU-NJ Praises Court Decision Protecting Reproductive Freedom, Free Speech

TRENTON, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded a decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissing a medical malpractice lawsuit that could have improperly forced physicians to give a non-medical, value-laden speech to their patients before performing an abortion. The ACLU called the decision a victory for reproductive rights and free speech in New Jersey.

"We are pleased that the court dismissed this frivolous lawsuit, which had no basis in law or medicine," said Brigitte Amiri, a staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "This case was nothing more than an underhanded attempt to turn doctors into ideological mouthpieces and subject women to non-medical moral judgments."

In 1998, Rosa Acuna brought a medical malpractice lawsuit against a doctor in New Jersey, claiming that he had failed to properly inform her at the time of her abortion that the embryo was a "complete, separate, unique and irreplaceable human being" with whom she had "an existing relationship," and his failure to do so caused her emotional distress. According to court papers, Acuna, who had two children prior to her abortion, stated that at the time of her abortion she understood that she was pregnant and signed a form consenting to the procedure.

"Today's victory sends a message that New Jersey will not tolerate backdoor efforts to curtail reproductive rights or free speech," said Ed Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. "We will not allow the anti-choice lobby to force its moral or theological beliefs upon others and to intimidate doctors or women with lawsuits that are without merit."

In its unanimous decision, the court noted, "we know of no common law duty requiring a physician to instruct the woman that the embryo is an 'existing human being,' and suggesting that an abortion is tantamount to murder. There is not even remotely a consensus among New Jersey's medical community or citizenry that plaintiff's assertions are medical facts, as opposed to firmly held, moral philosophical, and religious beliefs."

Acuna's lawsuit is one of three instances where anti-choice foes have insisted that doctors must read a similar script to their patients prior to performing an abortion. A class-action medical malpractice lawsuit with similar claims was recently brought in Illinois, and in South Dakota, reproductive rights advocates are currently challenging a law that may require doctors to read language identical to that found in this case.

Today's decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court only reaches the issue of whether Acuna's malpractice case should go to a jury trial. Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if it will consider a separate issue in the case regarding the legitimacy of a federal equal protection challenge involving New Jersey's wrongful death statute.

Today's case is Acuna v. Turkish (Docket No. 59, 525). Lawyers on the ACLU's friend-of-the-court brief include Amiri and Talcott Camp of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project and Barocas of the ACLU of New Jersey.