May, 06 2020, 12:00am EDT
Supreme Court to Hear Case on Future of Birth Control Coverage
Trump administration defending rules that would enable employers and universities to deny birth control coverage based on their personal beliefs.
WASHINGTON
Today, just days before the 60th anniversary of the birth control pill, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Pennsylvania and consider two dangerous Trump administration rules that would allow an employer or university to deny birth control coverage because of their personal objections. This case could have far-reaching implications for the future of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) birth control benefit, which expanded contraceptive coverage with no out-of-pocket costs for more than 62 million women, including 17 million Latinas and 15 million Black women.
Statement from Alexis McGill Johnson, president, Planned Parenthood Action Fund:
"It's deeply concerning that in the middle of a public health crisis, the Trump administration is continuing to defend a policy that threatens access to birth control for millions of women. This shouldn't be up for debate -- we are just days away from the 60th anniversary of FDA approval of the birth control pill, a critical part of the range of birth control that nearly nine in 10 women use in their lifetimes. This case highlights the lengths the administration will go to attack people's fundamental right to control their own bodies, at a time when we should be coming together to support one another. Planned Parenthood Action Fund cannot and will not stand by as the administration continues to put access to reproductive health care at risk in this country."
Granting employers and universities the right to take away coverage for essential and time-sensitive medication like birth control will complicate health care needs, while people are already facing health crises due to the global pandemic. It will also add to the economic hardships many face in these uncertain times -- access to birth control is responsible for one-third of women's wage gains relative to men's since the 1960's. This is especially true for women of color who have always faced economic disparities and, therefore, limited access to health care. People of color make up the majority of low-wage earners economically impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and women of color are more likely to hold jobs deemed "essential" than any other demographic.
The data show that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe women should have birth control coverage, regardless of their employer's personal objections, putting the administration in direct opposition with the public.
These birth control rules are just the latest attempt by the administration to push policies that attack reproductive health care and access including abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, gagging Title X health providers and forcing Planned Parenthood health centers out of the program, and continued support of litigation to strike the ACA, even during a public health crisis. Another regulation by this administration would embolden health care workers to refuse to provide health services that they personally find objectionable, like transgender care, abortion, sterilization, and AIDS treatment. That rule is also currently blocked in court.
While this case is about the ACA's birth control benefit specifically, if the administration succeeds in implementing its broader agenda to allow numerous entities to deny access to care and coverage, it will have far reaching implications impacting women, families, LGBT people, and more. The administration is simultaneously pushing policies that would allow institutions and individuals to discriminate against people and deny access to coverage and care based on their personal beliefs in many other situations. Schools and employers could argue they should be able to decline to cover health care services they find objectionable -- perhaps including things like hormone therapy for transgender people, blood transfusions, or critical vaccines. They may even argue they should not have to provide health coverage at all.
The Supreme Court also recently heard arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, a case that could have serious consequences for abortion access in the U.S. In 2020, access to all sexual and reproductive health care is at risk.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is many things to many people. We are a trusted health care provider, an informed educator, a passionate advocate, and a global partner helping similar organizations around the world. Planned Parenthood delivers vital health care services, sex education, and sexual health information to millions of women, men, and young people.
LATEST NEWS
Fetterman Helps GOP Senators Sink Democrat Effort to Block Trump War on Cuba
"The last thing working Americans need right now is another war," said the Senate's top Democrat.
Apr 28, 2026
The US Senate on Tuesday defeated a Democrat-led bid to stop President Donald Trump from following through on his threat to wage war on Cuba, whose long-suffering people are reeling from the American administration's tightened economic stranglehold.
Upper chamber lawmakers voted 51-47 on a procedural motion to block further debate Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) SJ Res. 124, "a joint resolution to direct the removal of United States armed forces from hostilities within or against the republic of Cuba that have not been authorized by Congress."
Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted to advance the resolution, while John Fetterman of Pennsylvania joined his GOP colleagues in voting to sink the measure.
The vote effectively sidelines the measure, one of many failed attempts to curb Trump's ability to wage war on countries including Iran and Venezuela, as well as rein in his high seas boat bombing spree.
“The American people are not asking for another war," Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.)—one of SJ Res. 124's dozen co-sponsors—said following Tuesday's vote. "They want us focused on building housing in Arizona, not bombing housing in Havana. They want us to lower the cost of healthcare not condemn a generation of veterans to a lifetime of hospital visits. They want us to make their lives more affordable, not spend their tax dollars on unnecessary wars."
Kaine called the GOP move "purely a regime change effort."
"Why do they want it? You'll have to ask them," he added. "What we're doing with respect to Cuba, if somebody was doing it to us, we would consider it an act of war. But because they don't pose a security threat to the United States, it's clearly an effort to change the regime."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who also co-sponsored the resolution, said, "The last thing working Americans need right now is another war—let alone one that’s 90 miles south of the US."
Resolution co-sponsor Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) said on Bluesky after the vote, "A conflict with Cuba would cost hardworking Americans billions of dollars, deepen the humanitarian crisis in Cuba, and put American service members in harm’s way."
"The Constitution is clear: Only Congress has the authority to declare war," Alsobrooks added.
Trump has attacked seven countries since returning to office and 10 since the start of his first term—more than any other president.
The situation in Cuba is dire, as a result of both the 65-year US economic chokehold on the island and mismanaged central planning by its socialist rulers.
Trump has been ramping up military threats and economic pressure on Cuba, whose people were already suffering from generations of US sanctions. His administration's tightened embargo has severely restricted fuel imports, worsening an energy emergency in which blackouts have become the norm, threatening the lives of vulnerable Cubans—especially sick people and children.
The US president said that “we may stop by Cuba after we’re finished" with the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran that’s killed thousands of people, including hundreds of children. Trump has also said that he believes he’ll “be having the honor of taking Cuba."
The United States already took Cuba once, during an 1898 war waged against Spain under highly dubious pretenses that ended with the US also acquiring Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam—with Hawaii also annexed that year under the guise of security.
American presidents have been trying to force out Cuba's socialist government since shortly after the revolution that overthrew a US-backed dictatorship in 1959. US efforts have included carrying out or backing an armed invasion, terrorist attacks, assassination attempts, and other acts of aggression.
Cuba commits no such acts against the United States or anyone else, yet Trump added the country to the US State Sponsors of Terrorism list.
Following Tuesday's vote, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said that "Trump should learn the law of holes: If you find yourself in one, stop digging."
"Instead of threatening that ‘Cuba is next,’ President Trump should remove his blockade against Cuba, which has devastated Havana’s economy and healthcare system, and has created a deepening humanitarian crisis," Markey added.
The United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly condemned the blockade 33 times since 1992.
“With its catastrophic Iran war of choice, the Trump administration has lost all credibility on issues of war and peace," Markey asserted. "The American people do not want yet another endless war that will only costs more lives and more taxpayer dollars, and undermine US security.”
Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler warned Tuesday that "Trump is preparing military action against Cuba," calling the Senate vote possibly "the last chance for US Congress to stop it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
FCC Moves to Yank Disney Broadcast Licenses as Trumps Demand ABC Fire Kimmel
"This is a clear attack on the First Amendment and a political stunt designed to intimidate critics, retaliate against a comedian practicing free speech through satire, and send a message to anyone who dares to speak out."
Apr 28, 2026
Press freedom advocates on Tuesday forcefully condemned the Republican-dominated Federal Communications Commission—and FCC Chair Brendan Carr in particular—for moving to challenge Disney-owned ABC's broadcast licenses as President Donald Trump again pressures to network to fire late-night television host Jimmy Kimmel.
"The First Amendment and the FCC's mandate do not permit the agency to use broadcast licenses as weapons to punish broadcasters for constitutionally protected content they air," declared Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern.
"Brendan Carr was once a serious communications lawyer, and has repeatedly and correctly said that the FCC has no role in policing content, whether news reporting or comedians’ late night jokes," Stern pointed out. "Carr's decision to abandon his principles to kiss up to Trump to advance his career does not change the law that Carr knows full well applies."
"The FCC is neither the journalism police nor the humor police," he added. "This is nothing but illegal jawboning intended to intimidate ABC into kissing the ring."
Kimmel—whom ABC briefly suspended last year amid pressure from Carr over comments the comedian made about assassinated right-wing activist Charlie Kirk—joked last Thursday that the first lady, Melania Trump, had "a glow like an expectant widow." Two days later, a gunman attempted to enter the White House Correspondents' Dinner—and on Monday, he was charged with trying to assassinate the president.
Also on Monday, both Donald and Melania Trump separately took to social media, calling for Kimmel to be fired. The comedian, meanwhile, opened his Monday night monologue to crowd chants of "Jimmy" and defended his joke, highlighting the Trumps' age gap.
On Tuesday, Semafor reported the FCC's plans to challenge the ABC licenses, which weren't slated for review until at least 2028. Other outlets began confirming the reporting, citing unnamed sources, and the agency ultimately issued the anticipated order—which says that "the FCC has been investigating Disney's ABC stations for possible violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC’s rules, including the agency's prohibition on unlawful discrimination."
The order, signed by David J. Brown, chief of the Video Division, directs ABC to "file license renewals for all of their licensed TV stations within 30 days—in other words, by May 28, 2026." Those stations are WABC-TV (New York), KABC-TV (Los Angeles), WLS-TV (Chicago), WPVI-TV (Philadelphia), KTRK-TV (Houston), KGO-TV (San Francisco), WTVD-TV (Raleigh-Durham), and KFSN-TV (Fresno).
As CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter explained: "The order will not affect the local stations right away. It is just the start of a protracted legal process, and ABC has broad legal protections. Nevertheless, the FCC order is an extraordinary escalation by the Trump administration."
"The FCC had not filed an early-renewal order in decades, according to a source familiar with the matter, until Monday, when the agency took action against a small station license holder called Bridge News," Stelter noted. "Both Bridge and Disney will now go through a lengthy hearing process, giving the stations multiple chances to respond."
Disney said in a statement that "we have received the Federal Communications Commission's order initiating an accelerated review of the licenses held by ABC's owned television stations. ABC and its stations have a long record of operating in full compliance with FCC rules and serving their local communities with trusted news, emergency information, and public‑interest programming."
"We are confident that record demonstrates our continued qualifications as licensees under the Communications Act and the First Amendment, and are prepared to show that through the appropriate legal channels," the company continued. "Our focus remains, as always, on serving viewers in the local communities where our stations operate."
Commissioner Anna Gomez—currently the FCC's only Democratic appointee—said that "the effort to challenge the licenses of ABC/Disney-owned stations is the FCC's most egregious attack on the First Amendment to date. But it will fail. This should be a lesson to media companies that no amount of capitulation to this administration will buy them protection."
Jessica J. González, co-CEO of the advocacy group Free Press, was similarly optimistic. She said that "Carr will try to dress up this latest attack like a legitimate FCC procedure, but his motivations are clear. He is using his position of power to silence dissent at the president's beck and call. This extraordinary and unconstitutional attack on the media is nothing more than another favor to the most fragile president in U.S. history."
"The FCC’s ongoing attack on lawful and important diversity, equity, and inclusion programs is immoral," she argued. "The timing of this move suggests unconstitutional retribution for a joke Donald Trump didn't like. Either way, this dangerous attack on free speech won’t stand up to any First Amendment test. We've seen Carr violate his oath to uphold the Constitution again and again. It's time for Congress to impeach him."
González added that "for its part, ABC and Disney leadership need to stand strong on behalf of their First Amendment right to air content without government intrusion and censorship. Buckling in advance to pressure by this administration and its obsequious FCC chairman didn't work for the broadcaster when it suspended Kimmel last year. It would be a grave mistake to buckle in advance again to these kinds of chilling government threats from Trump's censorship czar."
The organization MoveOn has launched a petition in support of Kimmel, which already has over 257,000 signatures.
"The Trump administration's targeting of ABC's broadcast licenses sends a chilling message: Fall in line or face consequences," said MoveOn Civic Action chief communications officer Joel Payne. "This is a clear attack on the First Amendment and a political stunt designed to intimidate critics, retaliate against a comedian practicing free speech through satire, and send a message to anyone who dares to speak out."
"ABC and Disney must not back down to Donald Trump or any bureaucrat in his administration doing his bidding," Payne stressed. "This is bigger than just an attempt to bully Jimmy Kimmel—this is about telling the American people what to think, what to laugh at, what to say, and what to criticize. Our members will fight any efforts to weaponize the government to punish speech and will hold corporations who bow to this pressure accountable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Demands Release of Gaza's Dr. Abu Safiya After Israeli Court Extends Detention
“Dr. Abu Safiya is currently held in Negev Prison under harsh conditions, without access to his medication or receiving medical treatment, despite the deterioration of his health," said the Israeli-based Physicians for Human Rights Israel.
Apr 28, 2026
An Israeli human rights group is demanding the release of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Gaza, after a court ordered his detention extended.
Physicians for Human Rights Israel on Tuesday blasted the Beersheba District Court for extending the detention of Abu Safiya, who has been held in prison since December 27, 2024, without being charged with any criminal offenses.
The court justified keeping Abu Saifya detained under Israel's Unlawful Combatants Law, which allows for the detention of Palestinians for long periods without trial.
“The court upheld the detention despite arguments that detaining a doctor while performing his medical duties constitutes unlawful detention,” said Physicians for Human Rights Israel. “Dr. Abu Safiya is currently held in Negev Prison under harsh conditions, without access to his medication or receiving medical treatment, despite the deterioration of his health."
The group added that it is demanding "the immediate release of Dr. Abu Safiya along with 13 other detained doctors, as well as all medical personnel currently held in Israel. We call on the international community to intervene and put an end to this abuse."
The US-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also slammed the court ruling, calling Abu Safiya's detention "a grave injustice and a blatant violation of fundamental human rights and due process."
"As a physician and hospital director, Dr. Abu Safiya dedicated his life to saving others," CAIR added, "yet he now faces indefinite imprisonment under conditions that credible reports indicate include torture, denial of medical care, and severe mistreatment."
A 2025 report from Amnesty International, which has also called for Abu Safiya's release, said that the Gaza-based physician "was detained in the course of caring for his patients and carrying out his medical duties."
Amnesty also noted that, prior to his detention, Abu Safiya and other colleagues at the Kamal Adwan Hospital had "provided human rights and humanitarian organizations with reliable information about the health situation" in Gaza, which has been left devastated by years of Israeli attacks that have killed at least 72,000 Palestinians.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


