Further to this entry, I got the same form letter back from Target that Joseph got:

From: guest.relations@target.com
Date Fri, 18 Nov 2005
To: me
Subject: Filling Prescriptions at Target

Dear Bill Hooker,

In our ongoing effort to provide great service to our guests, Target consistently ensures that prescriptions for the emergency contraceptive Plan B are filled. As an Equal Opportunity Employer, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also requires us to accommodate our team members’ sincerely held religious beliefs.

In the rare event that a pharmacist’s beliefs conflict with filling a guest’s prescription for the emergency contraceptive Plan B, our policy requires our pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner, either by another Target pharmacist or a different pharmacy.

- The emergency contraceptive Plan B is the only medication for which this policy applies.
- Under no circumstances can the pharmacist prevent the prescription from being filled, make discourteous or judgmental remarks, or discuss his or her religious beliefs with the guest.

Target abides by all state and local laws and, in the event that other laws conflict with our policy, we follow the law.

We're surprised and disappointed by Planned Parenthood’s negative campaign. We’ve been talking with Planned Parenthood to clarify our policy and reinforce our commitment to ensuring that our guests’ prescriptions for the emergency contraceptive Plan B are filled. Our policy is similar to that of many other retailers and follows the recommendations of the American Pharmacists Association. That’s why it’s unclear why Target is being singled out.

We’re committed to meeting the needs of our female guests and will continue to deliver upon that commitment.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Hanson
Target Executive Offices

What weaselly bullshit. It appears to have been updated in response to other people's letters; for instance, the bit about Plan B being the only "refusable" was not in the earlier response Portia got. A simple google search reveals yet other variations.

I sent this back:

Dear Ms Hanson:

You cannot hide behind the Civil Rights Act: there is nothing in the
idea of "religious freedom" which allows a person or organisation to
force their beliefs on another, which is what a Target pharmacist will
be doing if they refuse to fill a Plan B scrip. Further, what is the
moral difference between condoms and Plan B (which, as I'm sure you are
aware, is not an abortifacient)? Does your odd interpretation of the
CRA also oblige you to accomodate factual inaccuracies and logical
inconsistencies?

You write that your pharmacy employees are not allowed to "make
discourteous or judgmental remarks, or discuss [...] religious beliefs"
-- bunk, and you know it. The simple act of refusing to fill the scrip
is discourteous and judgemental. Let your pharmacy employees show the
courage of their convictions and resign if the job conflicts with their
beliefs, rather than shift the weight and cost of those beliefs onto
Target's female customers.

And quit whining about being "singled out". What you are doing is
wrong, and "others are doing it too" is no excuse. My own boycott
extends to any and all pharmacies who implement reprehensible policies
like Target's. Planned Parenthood's refusal to let Target get away with
it in no way precludes simultaneous action against other groups.

Until and unless Target recognises that the physical autonomy of their
female customers takes precedence over any employee's personal belief, I
will withhold my custom entirely and encourage everyone else to do
likewise.

Planned Parenthood's detailed takedown of the Target response letter is here. PP has a ton of other resources, including fact sheets on refusal clauses and the difference between EC and medication abortion, a list of documented pharmacist refusals, summaries of state actions and laws and a list of ways to get involved, including a followup email campaign.

PP also has an email you can send to thank companies whose policies are in line with the PP position; so far, only Costco, CVS, Harris Teeter, K-Mart and Price Choppers qualify.

Update: the National Women's Law Center also has a page of resources for women's health, including the Pharmacy Refusal Project and information about emergency contraception.

Via Atrios: Target is allowing their pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B emergency contraception. Not acceptable. John at AmericaBlog has the skinny.

The contact form for their pharmacy dept is here. I sent 'em this:

Dear Target:

your pharmacists do not have the right to refuse to fill Plan B prescriptions, under the CRA or any other law. Do your Jewish or Muslim cafeteria workers have the right to refuse to serve pork? Can your fundamentalist Christian employees refuse service to the glbt?

I will not spend a penny at Target until and unless this reprehensible policy changes.

Admittedly, I haven't set foot in a Target since I moved to the US, nor is there much chance of me doing so -- there simply aren't any convenient to me and I tend to avoid large multinationals on general principle. Now, however, if I happen to be by a Target and in the market for something they sell, I will go elsewhere. It's a teeny inconvenience, which makes my boycott letter a little disingenuous -- but I can live with that.

Teenagers like sex; that right there is a basic, ineluctable fact of human nature. They like it the way they like, you know, breathing, and telling them it's bad and dirty won't help anything. Threatening them with lakes of fire and disapproval and excommunication might make them feel bad, and if you're a certain kind of grubby Christianist¹ moralizer that might make you feel good, but it won't stop the teenagers from making like the sex-crazed monkeys they are, every chance they get.

So you don't have to agree with me that sex is good and fun and wholesome, and teenagers (and adults and pensioners and dogs and chickens, though not all in the same bed) should get as much of it as they want, to agree with me that abstinence-only sex "education" is a worthless crock of shit. Rep. Henry Waxman recently commissioned an investigation which found that

...over 80% of the abstinence-only curricula, used by over two-thirds of SPRANS (Special Programs of Regional and National Significance Community-Based Abstinence Education) grantees in 2003, contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.

Today NARAL sent me email about an amendment put forward by Sen Frank Lautenberg that ensures that "federally funded "abstinence-only" programs teach only medically accurate information". It's S. Amdt. 2269 but you can't read it on Thomas for a day or so (printing delay or some such). I do want to read it, because there are plenty of ways to weasel out of a commitment to "medically accurate information", but it's a start. NARAL has made it easy for you to send a letter to your representatives in support of Sen Lautenberg's amendment. Here's mine:

Abstinence-only programs will receive $168 million in federal funding this year. This is an unconscionable waste of taxpayer dollars.

Quite apart from scientific inaccuracies, factual errors (or, you know, lies) and rampant misogynism, it is plain that abstinence-only advice is utterly ineffective.

Teenagers are going to get busy; you know it, I know it, the kids know it. Only a narrow-minded, repressed, moralistic right-wing fringe lunatic who prefers rising rates of teenage pregnancy and STD to admitting this basic fact of human nature, would deny the kids the information they need to stay safe and healthy.

It's critical that you join with your colleagues to review and correct these programs. Please contact Rep. Inslee or Rep. Crowley to join their efforts.

----
¹By analogy with "Islamist", and distinct from anything that might properly be called "Christian".

From the ACLU:

This Tuesday the deadline expires on a public comment period for Plan B, a form of emergency contraception that would already be available without a prescription if it were not trapped in bureaucratic limbo for purely political reasons.

Although scientists overwhelmingly agree that Plan B is safe for over-the-counter use, the FDA has unconscionably put off making a decision on whether or not it will allow over-the-counter sales for over two years. Even senior members of the FDA support making the drug available without a prescription. In fact, Susan Wood, director of the FDA's women's health office for nearly five years, has resigned because of this delay.

To add your voice to the call for reproductive rights by posting a comment to the FDA website, click here.

More information is available here, here and here; FDA's weaselly bullshit here. This is the comment I sent:

I urge the FDA to approve Barr Laboratory's application to market Plan B over-the-counter. By continuing to delay a decision on this application the FDA fails to meet its obligation to promote and protect women's health.

How many women have suffered needlessly in the two years the FDA has been dragging its feet on this issue, in direct defiance of medical evidence and opinion (from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association, to name just three authoritative bodies who support otc access to Plan B)?

The current requirement for a prescription for Plan B is utterly ridiculous: emergency contraception must be taken within 72 to 120 hours after unprotected intercourse. What part of 'emergency' are you having trouble understanding? Do you require a prescription for snakebite antivenom? (Well no, of course not: men might get bitten by a snake.)

The decision to limit otc availability of Plan B to women seventeen years or older will do nothing but humiliate women who are already dealing with a traumatic situation. It smacks of pandering to the repressive, authoritarian, misogynistic religious right. So let's get away for a moment from the madonna/whore nonsense the fundies are peddling. Every year approximately 25,000 pregnancies occur because of sexual assault, and the prescription requirement serves as a major barrier to access to emergency contraception for many of these women. Would you, whoever you are reading this, be prepared to face any of these women and tell them, tough, you need a prescription: you have to find another doctor, answer more personal and painful questions, and find a pharmacy to fill your prescription, all in the next 72 hours? Plan B can immediately and safely remove the risk of unwanted pregnancy; what possible reason could there be for denying the victim of sexual assault this protection?

Finally, there can be no objection to Plan B on the grounds of opposition to abortion. Plan B is NOT an abortifacient; it prevents implantation¹. It is contraception, no different in functionterms of whether it causes abortion from a condom. Otc access to plan B will significantly reduce abortion rates.

More than 70 medical organizations and the FDA's own drug advisory committees support making Plan B available over-the-counter. Continued stalling makes it plain that the FDA is not an independent regulatory body but a political organization, not an advocate for citizen health and safety but a pliant tool in the hands of power.

Everyone should know about emergency contraception. You can learn what it is, how it works and how to get it from Back Up Your Birth Control and Princeton U's Emergency Contraception page.

¹ Update: oops. Although progestin does prevent implantation in some animal models, there is no direct evidence that it does the same thing in humans. What it clearly does do is prevent ovulation. This matters because sperm can survive up to five days in the reproductive tract, and a mature egg has a window of about 24 hours during which it can be fertilized. Note, though, that this can in no way represent abortion, since implantation does not occur until 7 days after ovulation.

How do I know all this? I read ema's post over at The Well-Timed Period. You should too. (Hat-tip: Prof B.)

Did you leave the FDA a comment yet? If not, please do.

Barbara Boxer is calling on President Katrina to bring the Mississippi/Louisiana National Guard home from Iraq right now. Imagine what a difference 7000 troops could have made in preparing for the hurricane and coping with the aftermath. Imagine watching that happen to your family, friends and home from halfway around the world and not being allowed to do a damn thing. Imagine that the degenerate in the oval office is accountable to the people, and send him a letter in support of Boxer's demand. Here's mine:

Dear President Katrina:

as you have seen from the window of your private jet, and later during several tough-guy photo ops with emergency forces who should have been out rescuing people, Hurricane Katrina has taken thousands of lives and caused billions of dollars of property damage. Among the many screwups you and your equally incompetent cronies have inflicted on the region, the absence of thousands of National Guard forces (currently stationed in Iraq) has served only to exacerbate the severity of the situation.

More than 7,000 members of the National Guard from Mississippi and Louisiana are in Iraq right now because you lied this country into an illegal war of aggression. They should have been home to help when the storm hit, and they should be home to help now. The thousands of lives that they would undoubtedly have saved, and could be saving right now, are on your conscience -- or would be, if you had one.

You have a responsibility (you'll need to look that word up) to allow members of the National Guard from these states to return to their homes, where they can assist in rebuilding efforts.

For once in your greedy, bumbling, silver-spoon life, do the right thing. Bring the Mississippi and Lousiana National Guard troops home from Iraq today.

One way or another, the US must leave Iraq. I don't know whether we should pull out unilaterally asap, or carry out a strategic withdrawal over some months; in the former case I don't know how we could ask, say, UN troops to fill the security gap that would undoubtedly be formed, and in the latter case I worry that it will turn into nothing but another cover for US imperialism. I cannot think my way through this; I haven't the experience and I probably haven't the smarts.

Fortunately for the world, that isn't my job. Unfortunately for the world, it is GW Bush's job. To date, he hasn't even bothered trying.

I've already signed Barbara Boxer's petition for a plan; today I got email asking me to ask others to sign. That's what this post is for: if you haven't, please go right now and sign it. Here's the text:

After two and a half years of war, the American people are still waiting to hear the truth about what our mission is in Iraq and how we are going to accomplish it. Frankly, it is difficult to keep track of all the missions we've had so far, because the story changes every few weeks. First there was the weapons of mass destruction mission, then regime change, then rebuilding, then bringing democracy, and now it's fighting terrorism.

It's time to develop a strategy that can succeed in Iraq, defuse the terrorist insurgency, and bring our brave men and women home. That will only happen if you immediately bring credibility, accountability, and responsibility to a war that has been lacking in all three.

***Credibility: It's time for you to stop using sound bytes like "Mission Accomplished" and be truthful with the American people.

***Accountability: We need to hear from your Administration exactly how many Iraqi forces are needed; how to meet that goal; and by when.

***Responsibility: We must honor our soldiers not just on the 4th of July, but every day -- by giving them the equipment they need while they are deployed and the health care they deserve when they come home.

I urge you to tell the truth to the American people, articulate a clear timeline of our plans for Iraq, and take responsibility for our men and women in uniform.

Boxer plans to hand that to Smirk when he gets back from his spot of R'n'R down on the ranch. Reasonable people can disagree in good faith over how to handle the withdrawal, but it's undeniable that the US cannot simply stay in Iraq forever and it's unconscionable that the US government has provided no plan whatsoever for handing the Iraqis back what's left of their country. Think about it: who in their right mind goes to war, sets up an occupation of the conquered nation, and doesn't give a second thought to what to do next? My fear is that this US government, composed as it is of sociopaths, war criminals, ordinary criminals, cowards, thieves and liars of every stripe and dimension, does in fact have a plan but cannot admit to it publicly. They must be forced to commit to a public plan composed of specific actions on a specific schedule, not a half-assed handful of neocon talking points.

Please sign the petition.

From my email to your screen, three worthwhile petitions to sign/letters to send:

From NARAL, Urge the FDA to improve access to the morning-after pill:

Will the Bush administration - FINALLY - put aside its anti-choice agenda in order to improve women's access to birth control?

We'll know by September 1, when Bush's FDA is scheduled to decide whether to allow the morning-after pill to be sold without a prescription.

Making the morning-after pill available for over-the-counter access isn't just good health policy for women, it's common sense. The morning-after pill, also called emergency contraception or EC, prevents pregnancy AFTER sex - and it is most effective the sooner it's taken. It's also extremely safe, and it won't harm an existing pregnancy. The FDA's own scientific and medical advisory panels overwhelmingly support improving access to it.

So what's the hold up? Could it be vocal anti-choice members of Congress who urged Bush and the FDA to reject the application? Could it be President Bush, whose own spokesperson wouldn't even "dignify" a simple question asking Bush's position on birth control with an answer?

Help us tell the FDA that Americans don't appreciate anti-choice politics getting in the way of sound science and women's access to birth control.

(They're a bit shrill, eh? Why ever could that be?)

From the ACLU, Tell Congress the Patriot Act Needs Reform:

The flawed provisions of the Patriot Act threaten our basic constitutional freedoms by giving the government the power to access our medical records, our tax records, and information about the books we buy or borrow, all without probable cause or any facts connecting us to foreign terrorists. The Patriot Act also gives the government the power to obtain a special "sneak and peek" search warrant to break into our homes and conduct secret searches without telling us for weeks, months or indefinitely, and without any connection to terrorism at all. The Patriot Act needs to be reformed, not expanded or made permanent.

Hundreds of communities -- and seven states -- have passed resolutions against the worst excesses of the Patriot Act. Our message is clear: It is time for Congress to listen to its constituents and bring the Patriot Act in line with the Constitution.

and Demand An Independent Counsel for Torture Abuses and Release of Relevant Documents:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (ptui!) is now the nation's top law enforcement officer and as such is responsible for investigating how our government's torture policies took such a misguided path. The American people deserve to know the truth about what torture tactics have been employed in the past and what tactics will be used in the future. Because Gonzales was involved in the development of the policies, Gonzales needs to commit to ensuring a full and fair investigation by agreeing to appoint an outside special counsel for torture and abuse investigations and prosecutions of civilians.

It is important that Gonzales agree to appoint an outside special counsel because an array of already-released documents clearly show that top government officials considered and eventually ordered the removal of protections against many abusive detention and interrogation practices. Despite loudly repeated demands by Congress and the American people, the Bush Administration has successfully blocked the release of documents related to policy changes that paved the way for the horrors of Abu Ghraib and other American-operated detention facilities.

These petitions and letters do matter. They are a useful way for lobbying groups to demonstrate the nature and strength of public opinion, one of the few things besides money to which politicians will respond. The higher the volume, the greater the impact, so every single signature/letter counts, and taking part gives you the chance to amplify your voice and have it reach much further than it could alone. So I'm going to keep posting these links, and I've changed the name of the category from the begrudging "better than nothing" to "have your say".

From the ACLU Action Network:

This Saturday marks the 40th Anniversary of Congress passing the most successful piece of civil rights legislation in history: the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. Unfortunately, unless Congress votes to renew several key sections of the law, they will expire by 2007.

Congress could begin considering renewal legislation as early as this fall, so we need your help now to make sure that all of the expiring provisions are renewed and restored and to prevent opponents of the VRA from sabotaging the reauthorization.

Today you can help ensure a return to fairness not just for immigrants, but for everybody, by urging Congress to support the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2005. These are not just "immigration" issues; current policies are a fundamental threat to the guarantee of due process for all people--as expressly required by the Constitution--and they endanger all of our rights.

Calling the VRA the most successful civil rights bill ever really isn't an exaggeration. By the end of 1965, more than a quarter million blacks had registered to vote. In the past forty years, the number of African-American elected officials has risen from 300 to close to 10,000.

After nearly a century under the "Jim Crow" system, which denied African-Americans the right to vote, the Voting Rights Act finally made clear that the Constitution's guarantee of equality under the law means what it says.

The expiring provisions include a section that requires voting districts with a history of discrimination to pre-approve or "pre-clear" changes to voting laws with the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington; a provision that gives the attorney general the authority to appoint poll watchers and election monitors; and a crucial provision that guarantees language assistance to voters with limited English proficiency.

These sections must be renewed if we are to ensure the continued success of the Voting Rights Act.

In addition, the legislation must also restore the spirit of the VRA by clarifying the kinds of circumstances that result in a retrenchment of voting rights for minority citizens. These important clarifications are needed because of recent Supreme Court decisions that have substantially weakened the effectiveness of the Act.

Although the law ended poll taxes and literacy tests that were expressly designed to disfranchise minorities, discrimination still occurs in subtler, yet no less harmful, forms. For instance, just last year, a federal court determined that the state of South Dakota was officially conspiring to disfranchise American Indians. And, the state of Louisiana has never had a proposed change to its electoral law approved by the Justice Department.

Click here to urge your representatives to renew the expiring sections and restore the original intent of the Act.

From Barbara Boxer (whose PAC For A Change you really should check out), an opportunity to protest Preznit Dumbass' recess appointment of John Bolton:

On Monday, despite widespread opposition from Senators of both parties, as well as the American people, President Bush appointed John Bolton as UN Ambassador. By using the rarely utilized "recess appointment" while Congress is away over the month of August, the White House effectively thumbed its nose at the Senate, bypassing our Constitutional responsibility to "advise and consent" on such a nomination.

Here's the body of the letter from me that Smirky the Killer Clown will never read:

It is a sad irony that John Bolton is the perfect person to represent the US to the world at the United Nations. He has a history of abusing his subordinates and steamrolling over inconvenient facts in his determination to make the world answer to his ideology. He is a known liar who presented false information to the Senate in preparation for his hearings. He is a thoroughgoing hypocrite who has made plain his contempt for the UN and a hubris laden fool who now expects that body to take him seriously. He is plainly unqualified for the position, and will only take it up as a result of extraordinary interventions on his behalf.

In his new capacity, then, Bolton is a faithful reflection of his master in the oval office.

This is a sad day for the United States.

I've written about SpeakSpeak before. Right now, SpeakSpeak mainly functions as an antidote to the poisonous Parents (sic) Television Council, which seeks to use the Federal Communications Commission to impose their narrow, bigoted, repressive, uptight and generally odious worldview on the entire country. The FCC can "revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture, withhold or place conditions on the renewal of a broadcast license, or issue a warning, for the broadcast of obscene or indecent material", and just what constitutes obscenity or indecency is pretty broadly defined. To be obscene, material must satisfy all of the following tests:

• An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
• The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
• The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

So the FCC has a lot of leeway in carrying out its executive function; moreover:

Enforcement actions in this area are based on documented complaints received from the public about indecent or obscene broadcasting. The FCC’s staff reviews each complaint to determine whether it has sufficient information to suggest that there has been a violation of the obscenity or indecency laws.

So the self-appointed moral guardians of the PTC bombard the FCC with complaints every time there's a tit on the telly. Dealing with these complaints is a waste of public money, and -- more to the point, since we can do something about it -- there's a real danger that the manner in which FCC staff interpret the guidelines will be influenced. It's vital that the FCC not lose sight of their obligation to constitutionally protected freedom of speech. That's where SpeakSpeak comes in. Of particular importance here is the "average person, applying contemporary community standards" -- something the PTC cannot claim to represent if the FCC receives as many supportive messages as complaints about a given broadcast. SpeakSpeak thus makes it easy for the FCC to kick that third leg out from under obscenity complaints and avoid wasting time on the PTC's agenda.

Case in point: the PTC's latest whinefest concerns Fox's show The Inside. It sounds like unbearable shite to me, and anyway I'd rather eat my own eyeballs than watch anything on Fox. Nonetheless, it's not obscene by any reasonable interpretation of FCC standards (it's Episode 2 they're on about). By the PTC's own admission, what they are complaining about takes place offscreen (dammit, I'll have to link to 'em: their complaint is here). I would certainly find that episode, and the whole show, distasteful -- which, and here's a free clue for all you moral majority Pecksniffs, is why I don't watch it. Commitment to freedom of speech is measured in units of tolerance for speech one does not like.

You can go here to help defend that idea.

1. The Violence Against Women Act (version 7, scroll to Title IV) expires on September 30.

VAWA helps the survivors of domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault rebuild their lives.

Victims of domestic violence face tremendous obstacles when they attempt to flee abusive relationships. Their situation is often exacerbated when the abusive partner controls the family finances, owns the home, and in the case of immigrant women, retains the documentation of the immigration status of the family. This legislation provides legal assistance, enhances victims’ privacy rights, and works to eliminate bias against women among judges, prosecutors and the police.

VAWA saves lives and provides added opportunity to victims.

Surveys show that domestic violence is the immediate cause of homelessness for between 22 and 57 percent of homeless women, and that some women and their children lose their homes when they flee abuse. VAWA includes needed housing assistance for victims.

VAWA improves economic and job security for the victims of domestic or sexual violence.

The fear of job loss and the resulting economic instability prevents many battered women from escaping abusive relationships. VAWA would guarantee victims leave to deal with these issues, and would give them legal recourse if they are fired unfairly.

Click here to urge Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

2. Near to my immigrant heart, the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2005 seeks to restore basic fairness to US immigration policy.

Since 9/11, the federal government has enacted a series of policies that change the fight against terrorism into a campaign against immigrants. Many of these policies—especially those permitting indefinite detention, limiting court review of deportation decisions and keeping immigration hearings closed to the public and media—have been put in place without Congressional approval. Fortunately, Congress is reasserting itself with the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2005, which would help restore basic fairness to our immigration system. It is currently being considered in both chambers of Congress and it deserves your support. Click here to urge Congress to pass the Civil Liberties Restoration Act.

It would, for instance:

Require government officials to determine on a case-by-case basis which immigration hearings should be closed to the public or press.

Shortly after 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft imposed a blanket policy on certain deportation hearings, closing them to the public and the press. But, as a federal judge said of the Ashcroft order, “democracies die behind closed doors.” This provision would close the doors to our courtrooms only when truly necessary.

Limit detentions without charge by immigration officials.

Under current law, the government can indefinitely detain immigrants without formal charges or proper court review. This law would carefully limit detentions longer than 48-hours, and require exceptions to be narrow and specific to cases involving terrorism and other extraordinary circumstances.

Prevent government attorneys from trumping a judge’s decision that a detainee should be released.

Right now, something called the “automatic stay” rule means that when a government attorney objects to a judge’s order that a particular detainee be released, that detainee must remain in custody until the government’s appeal is heard. The Civil Liberties Restoration Act would fix that.

Click here to urge Congress to pass the Civil Liberties Restoration Act.

Why, I hear you ask, is he linking to the bills? Because you can use those links to find out whether your reps are already sponsoring the legislation in question, and tailor your letters accordingly. Here, for instance, is the body of the letter I sent David Wu:

As a concerned constituent, I strongly urge you to give your full support to the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2005, which I understand will be considered shortly in the House Judiciary Committee. This bill would help make our immigration laws fair again by reducing government secrecy, enhancing court review of immigration decisions and preventing unnecessary detention without charge.

I note that the congressional record (see here) does NOT list you as a co/sponsor, but you are on record as saying that "...in the process of combating international terrorism, we must neither abandon American civil liberties nor express our fears and anger by indiscriminately striking out against those with different names, skin color or religion.” I further note that you have supported the ACLU position on civil liberties 65-80% of the time since 2000, so I am hopeful that you will agree with me on this important matter.

I urge you to support this crucial bill.

It's good to remind the buggers, now and then, that we're watching 'em.

From NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League):

It's official: Americans can no longer take prescription birth control for granted. Yesterday, Monday, July 25, anti-choice representatives in the U.S. House made it clear that they support pharmacies that refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions - and that women have no right to birth control.

The radical right's campaign to stop birth control
The House Small Business Committee held a hearing on whether pharmacies should be allowed to refuse to fill women's prescriptions. Anti-choice Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told a witness, who had been denied birth control and emergency contraception by her pharmacist, that she had no "right" to her prescriptions - she only believed she did. Anti-choice Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) told a witness whose prescription had also been rejected by a hostile pharmacist, that her "minor inconvenience" - that is, risking an unintended pregnancy - was nothing compared to the "conscience" of a pharmacist.

The right's anti-birth control campaign doesn't stop in Washington, DC. Across the country, the radical right has engaged pharmacies in its campaign to block women's access to birth control. Women like Julee Lacey, a 32-year-old married mother of two and first-grade teacher from Texas, are being turned away by vigilante pharmacists who think it's their job to dispense morals instead of medicine.

Now, as many as 20 states officially protect pharmacists like Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, who says she'd lecture women customers to get off the pill. Other states are pursuing an even more aggressive strategy. Just last month Wisconsin passed a bill to block state universities from filling birth control prescriptions.

What you can do
Tell your Member of Congress that you expect him or her to stand up for you - not right-wing pharmacies that oppose birth control. Click here to send a message today.

Yeesh. I'm about to start work so I just sent the form letter. My rep, David Wu, is pro-choice, but I want him to know when he has my support as well as when I disagree with him. (I should have added something to that effect to the letter; oh well, next time.)