June, 22 2020, 12:00am EDT
Bermuda-Based Big Oil Corporation's Taxpayer Bailout Exemplifies Trump Administration's Fear Of Transparency
Corporation Double-Dipped With Turkish Government; SEC Filing Contradicts CEO’s Account
WASHINGTON
Today, government watchdog Accountable.US is releasing new information on Bermuda-based TransAtlantic Petroleum after the corporation's SEC filings revealed that they had been awarded a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) bailout despite selling all its U.S. assets in 2007 and relocating to Bermuda. The research also found discrepancies in the amount reported by the oil corporation and that it had also doubled-dipped after receiving an additional windfall from the Turkish government.
"The Trump administration's resistance to necessary transparency and accountability is directly related to the fact that large and even foreign-owned corporations that don't reside on U.S. soil have cashed in on their corruption. Until Congress demands full transparency, this will continue to be an unmitigated disaster that is going to completely derail any semblance of an equitable economic recovery," said Jayson O'Neill, Accountable.US spokesperson.
This past week, the administration raised questions about whether there would be full disclosure of relief fund recipients. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the administration wouldn't make PPP loan data available to the general public based on vague concerns about privacy, even though limited Small Business Administration (SBA) loan data has been public for decades. In fact, the most recent PPP data released by the SBA showed that 62% of private 'Mining' corporations, including oil and gas, and related activities, had been awarded nearly $4.5 billion in bailout funds. It is unclear if TransAtlantic is included in the total because it's based in Bermuda. The Trump administration inexplicably made foreign-owned corporations eligible shortly before the program was launched.
Late on Friday night, the Trump administration announced that it would release basic information on PPP loan recipients of more than $150,000. This came in apparent response to growing public pressure on the administration to follow through with its promises to release all individual data. However, under the new, evolving disclosure guidelines, only 14% of the bailout recipients' basic information will be released.
Unfortunately, TransAtlantic Petroleum isn't the only foreign extractive corporation that has been awarded taxpayer monies through the SBA. While the program was billed as a lifeline for Main Street small businesses and their workers struggling to survive the historic COVID-19 health and economic crisis, Accountable.US, through its Trump Bailouts tracker, has exposed that that hasn't always been the case.
The Bermuda-based oil corporation's second-quarter SEC filings showed that it had been awarded a $626,000 PPP bailout, but the corporation's CEO clarified to shareholders that due to its numerous affiliate subsidiaries, TransAtlantic had indeed been awarded over $2 million in taxpayer funds. Astonishingly, in the same meeting, TransAtlantic's CEO informed shareholders that it would be required to repay some of the bailouts, admitting that it may have been used for non-payroll expenses. TransAtlantic has compensated its billionaire CEO handsomely to the tune of nearly $4.5 million over the past two years.
In addition, TransAtlantic announced that they were double-dipping due to legislation passed by the Turkish government, which would result in an additional benefit of approximately $360,000. The corporation's net income has been upside down for at least the last four years.
The ongoing tracking project by Accountable.US at TrumpBailouts.org documents the billion-dollar corporations and other large companies that have received taxpayer assistance under the CARES Act, and what advantages and assets they had going into the COVID-19 crisis that most small businesses could never access.
Previous controversial PPP grantees include oil corporations that spent millions on stock buybacks, an Indiana-based coal corporation with a former Trump official as its lobbyist, at least two companies that market their ability to ship U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas, major luxury hotel chains, a fashion model agency, and even the L.A. Lakers.
Learn more about the special interests fueling the Trump administration at Accountable.US and the administration's ongoing efforts to carve out more big oil and coal bailouts at WesternValuesProject.org, an Accountable.US project focused on public lands conservation.
Bermuda-Based TransAtlantic Petroleum Omitted Key Details About The PPP Bailout It Got From The Trump Administration In Two Separate SEC Filings
Based In The Tax Haven Of Bermuda, Oil Corporation TransAtlantic Petroleum Reported Receiving US Taxpayer Funds Under The Paycheck Protection Program
During Q2 2020 The Trump Administration Allegedly Gave Oil And Natural Gas Company TransAtlantic Petroleum $626,000 Under The Federal Paycheck Protection Program...
TransAtlantic Is "An International Oil And Natural Gas Company." "We are an international oil and natural gas company engaged in acquisition, exploration, development, and production. We have focused our operations in countries that have established, yet underexplored, petroleum systems, are net importers of petroleum, have an existing petroleum transportation infrastructure and provide favorable commodity pricing, royalty rates and tax rates to exploration and production companies." [TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd. 10-K, 03/25/20]
TransAtlantic Claimed It Received A $626,000 Bailout Via The Paycheck Protection Program. [TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd. 2020 Annual Meeting June 5th 2020, accessed 06/05/20]
...Despite Originally Incorporating In Canada, Moving To Bermuda And Selling All Its US Assets In 2007.
TransAtlantic Was Originally Incorporated In Canada In 1985 And Then Moved To Bermuda In 2009. "TransAtlantic Petroleum was incorporated in 1985 under the laws of British Columbia, changed domicile to Alberta, Canada in 1997 and then to Bermuda in 2009." [TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd. History, accessed 06/05/20]
TransAtlantic Sold Its US Interests In 2007. "In 2007, the Company determined to exit its U.S. operations and focus on the development of its onshore international properties. To that end, TransAtlantic acquired additional exploration licenses in Turkey, converted a portion of its Moroccan reconnaissance license into two exploration permits, relinquished its UK North Sea licenses and sold its U.S. interests." [TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd. History, accessed 06/05/20]
While SEC Documents Filed Both Before And After The Shareholders Call Claim $626,000 In PPP Funding, TransAtlantic's CEO N. Malone Mitchell Revealed In A June 5, 2020 Shareholder Call That The Company Actually Received At Least $2 Million In PPP Funding.
In An Official SEC Filing Submitted On June 4th, 2020, TransAtlantic Said It Had Borrowed $626,000 Under The Payment Protection Program....
As Part Of Its Official 8-K Filed On June 4th, 2020 To The SEC, The Company Said It Had Borrowed $626,000. "In the second quarter of 2020, we borrowed approximately $626,000 pursuant to the U.S. Paycheck Protection Program (the PPP) to cover certain payroll, benefit, and rent expenses. We have forecast that amounts borrowed or received pursuant to the PPP will be forgiven for cash flow purposes. New guidance on the criteria for forgiveness continues to be released, and we currently expect that a majority of the amounts borrowed will be forgiven and a yet-to-be-determined amount will need to be repaid. Additionally, in the second quarter of 2020, the Turkish government passed legislation permitting employers to reduce the working hours of employees, reducing payroll and benefit expenses, through the end of June 2020. The projected reduction in payroll and benefit expenses due to this Turkish legislation is approximately $360,000. Financial condition Cash flow timing uncertainty" [SEC Accession No. 0001564590-20-028413, 06/04/20, TRANSATLANTIC PETROLEUM LTD.; EX-99.1, 06/05/20]
...The Next Day, June 5th,Their CEO Admitted That The Company Had Actually Received Over $2 Million.
Mitchell Admitted That Because Of All The Companies Borrowed More Than $2 Million, They Would Be Subject To An Audit. "As most of you know, the rules have continued to change from the government. And obviously, there was quite an issue associated with public companies because, of course, according to our legislators, every public company has an infinite access to whatever capital they want. Likewise, they've declared that anybody who took a $2 million or greater loan would be subject to audit. Forgiveness, they expect it would take 5 months if you were not subject to audit. And then they defined $2 million loans as loans aggregated among any parties who own -- who are treated as affiliates. And I may be a little bit wrong, we've got a number of our lawyers and accountants in the room, but I think under any of the classifications, all of our companies together, because of our ownership, will be considered an affiliate. And because all of the companies in combination borrowed over $2 million, we will be subject to an audit. So there is an increased uncertainty about both the time to forgiveness, the amount of forgiveness and being caught up in some political deal that says, you're too big, you have some other access or you're public, that does not make that quite clear as it was in the days where the applications were made and the money was borrowed. So that's an issue certainly." [TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd Annual Shareholders Meeting June 5th, 2020, accessed 06/12/20]
TransAtlantic Would Submit The Same Filing Again On June 8th, 2020, Stating The Company Had Received $626,000 Under The PPP.
As Part Of Its June 8th, 2020 Filing, TransAtlantic Resubmitted The Same Exhibit Stating It Had Received $626,000 Under The PPP. [SEC Accession No. 0001564590-20-028641, 06/08/20, TRANSATLANTIC PETROLEUM LTD.; EX-99.1, 06/04/20]
On The Same Shareholders Call, The TransAtlantic CEO Admitted It "Had An Amount" They Knew "Would Have To Be Repaid," Suggesting They Had Spent PPP Funding On Things They "Knew Wouldn't Be Allowed Under The Context"
TransAtlantic CEO Mitchell Said "It Is Extremely Likely That We Will Have To Repay A Portion Of That Loan," Suggesting They Had Spent The Money On Non-Payroll Expenses
On A Shareholder Call On June 5th, 2020, Mitchell Said TransAtlantic Had "An Amount That [They] Knew Would Have To Be Repaid "Budgeted To Not Have To Repay" It Was "Extremely Likely" The Company Would Have To Repay The Loan. "In the second quarter, and following to the next point, and this would certainly affect our cash balances. In the second quarter of 2020, we borrowed approximately $626,000 pursuant to the U.S. Paycheck Protection Program, called the PPP. And under that basis, we were allowed, the borrowers, 2.5 months of payroll. We have now completed the early qualifying part of that. Now recently, in the last week, both the House and the Senate have passed amendments to that program, where there's an extended period of time and there may be a little bit different left. It is extremely likely that we will have to repay a portion of that money. For cash flow purposes, we have budgeted to not have to repay what was not -- what we did -- what we knew wouldn't be allowed under the context of when we borrowed it. So we had an amount that we knew would have to be repaid. We have intended to repay that immediately following the application for forgiveness from the PPP." [TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd Annual Shareholders Meeting June 5th, 2020, accessed 06/12/20]
In Addition To U.S. Government Funding, TransAtlantic Double Dipped In Governmental COVID Bailouts Funds With An Additional $360,000 In Benefits From The Turkish Government
SEC Filings Show TransAtlantic Also Received $360,000 In Payroll And Benefit Expenses From Legislation Passed By The Turkish Government
As Part Of Its Official 8-K Filed On June 4th, 2020 To The SEC, The Company Said Also Benefited To The Tune Of $360,000 From COVID-19 Bailout Legislation Passed By The Turkish Government. "In the second quarter of 2020, we borrowed approximately $626,000 pursuant to the U.S. Paycheck Protection Program (the PPP) to cover certain payroll, benefit, and rent expenses. We have forecast that amounts borrowed or received pursuant to the PPP will be forgiven for cash flow purposes. New guidance on the criteria for forgiveness continues to be released, and we currently expect that a majority of the amounts borrowed will be forgiven and a yet-to-be-determined amount will need to be repaid. Additionally, in the second quarter of 2020, the Turkish government passed legislation permitting employers to reduce the working hours of employees, reducing payroll and benefit expenses, through the end of June 2020. The projected reduction in payroll and benefit expenses due to this Turkish legislation is approximately $360,000. Financial condition Cash flow timing uncertainty" [SEC Accession No. 0001564590-20-028413, 06/04/20, TRANSATLANTIC PETROLEUM LTD.; EX-99.1, 06/05/20]
TransAtlantic's Billionaire CEO Has Been Paid Millions In Compensation While Attempting To Acquire All Of The Company's Shares
TransAtlantic Paid Its CEO And Chairman Of The Board More Than $2 Million In Total Compensation For Each Year Of 2018 And 2019....
In 2019, TransAtlantic CEO And Chairman Of The Board, N. Malone Mitchell, Received A Salary Of $229,082, Stock Awards Totalling $72,409 And Other Compensation Totalling $1,748,265 For A Total Of $2,047,756. [TransAtlantic Holdings Ltd., DEF 14A, 04/20/20]
In 2018, TransAtlantic CEO And Chairman Of The Board, N. Malone Mitchell, Received A Salary Of $276,863, Stock Awards Totalling $50,725 And Other Compensation Totalling $2,101,837 For A Total Of $2,429,425. [TransAtlantic Holdings Ltd., DEF 14A, 04/20/20]
...Even Though He Is Reportedly A Billionaire.
According to Forbes Magazine, Mitchell's Network Was $1.4 Billion In 2011. [Forbes, accessed 06/05/20]
Mitchell Founded The Mitchell Group In 2007. [TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd. Investor Presentation, accessed 06/05/20]
According To Its Website: "The Mitchell Group (MG) Strongly Believes In The 'Vertigration' Management Control Style And Strategy In Business Operations. Mg Has Adopted This Approach By Layering Exploration, Production And Oil Field Services Under One Company." [Mitchell Group, accessed 06/05/20]
TransAtlantic Petroleum Was Incorporated In Canada And Sold All US Assets And Moved To Bermuda In 2007
Malone Mitchell And The Mitchell Group Offered To Acquire 100% Of TransAtlantic's Shares. "On April 21, 2020, the special committee of the board of directors (the 'Committee') of TransAtlantic Petroleum, Ltd. (the 'Company'") received an unsolicited offer (the 'Offer') from N. Malone Mitchell 3rd, the Company's chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors, on behalf of a group of the Company's current shareholders (the "Mitchell Group"), to acquire 100% of the Company's outstanding common shares, subject to certain conditions. A copy of the Offer is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated herein by reference. The Committee is in the process of hiring a financial advisor to assist with its review and evaluation of the Offer and any other offers that might be received. There is no assurance that the Offer will result in a sale of the Company or any other transaction." [TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd. 8-K, 04/23/20]
...Despite Originally Incorporating In Canada, Moving To Bermuda And Selling All Its US Assets In 2007...
TransAtlantic Was Originally Incorporated In Canada In 1985 And Then Moved To Bermuda In 2009. "TransAtlantic Petroleum was incorporated in 1985 under the laws of British Columbia, changed domicile to Alberta, Canada in 1997 and then to Bermuda in 2009." [TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd. History, accessed 06/05/20]
TransAtlantic Decided To Exit From The United States In 2007. "From 2005 through 2007, the Company focused on the United States and divesting its Nigerian property, which was sold in 2005. TransAtlantic acquired an exploration license in Morocco, Romania, Turkey, and the UK North Sea during this time. Concurrently, the Company acquired properties in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. In 2007, the Company determined to exit its U.S. operations and focus on the development of its onshore international properties. To that end, TransAtlantic acquired additional exploration licenses in Turkey, converted a portion of its Moroccan reconnaissance license into two exploration permits, relinquished its UK North Sea licenses and sold its U.S. interests." [TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd. History, accessed 06/05/20]
...With More Than 80 Percent Of Its Employees Located Abroad In Turkey And Bulgaria.
TransAtlantic Has 117 Employees In Turkey, Five In Bulgaria And 25 In Texas. "As of December 31, 2019, we employed 117 people in Turkey, 25 people in Addison, Texas and 5 people in Bulgaria." [TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd. 10-K, 03/25/20]
TransAtlantic's Oil Is Mostly Produced In Turkey And Sold To Turkish Entities
According To TransAtlantic, Nearly 98% Of Its 2019 Revenues Came From Oil Sold To A Turkish Entity, TUPRAS. "During 2019, 78.5% of our oil production, which is U.S. Dollar indexed, was concentrated in the Selmo and Bahar oil fields in Turkey. TUPRAS purchases substantially all of our oil production. During 2019, we sold $65.8 million of oil to TUPRAS, representing 97.7% of our total revenues. We sell all of our Southeastern Turkey oil to TUPRAS pursuant to a domestic crude oil purchase and sale agreement. Under the purchase and sale agreement, TUPRAS purchases oil produced by us that is delivered to TPAO's Batman tanks from which it is pumped to a TUPRAS vessel at the Dortyol plant via the national pipeline operated by BoruHatlari ile Petrol Tasima A.S. ("BOTAS"). [...] No other purchasers of our oil accounted for more than 10% of our total revenues." [TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd. 10-K, 03/25/20]
During 2018 and 2019, TransAtlantic Sold $65.8 Million And $68.2 Million Of Oil To TUPRAS, A "Privately-Owned Oil Refinery In Turkey." "During the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, we sold $65.8 million and $68.2 million, respectively, of oil to Turkiye Petrol Rafinerileri A.S. ("TUPRAS"), a privately-owned oil refinery in Turkey, which represented approximately 97.7%, and 96.4% of our total revenues, respectively." [TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd. 10-K, 03/25/20]
"During 2019, Substantially All Of Our Oil Production Was Concentrated In Southeastern Turkey..." [TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd. 10-K, 03/25/20]
Accountable.US is a nonpartisan watchdog that exposes corruption in public life and holds government officials and corporate special interests accountable by bringing their influence and misconduct to light. In doing so, we make way for policies that advance the interests of all Americans, not just the rich and powerful.
LATEST NEWS
'Crucial' UN Report on Gaza Genocide Must Spur Global Action, Says Amnesty
U.N. member states must "use their influence" to push Israel to halt its bombardment of Gaza and blocking of humanitarian aid, said the group's secretary general.
Mar 26, 2024
"The time to act to prevent genocide is now," Amnesty International's secretary general said Tuesday, a day after the United Nations Human Rights Council released a draft report detailing how the panel found that there are "reasonable grounds to believe" that Israel is already committing genocidal violence in Gaza.
Amnesty's Agnes Callamard called the 25-page report a "crucial body of work that must serve as a vital call to action to states," many of which have called for a cease-fire in Gaza for several months.
After the U.N. report found that "the overwhelming nature and scale of Israel's assault on Gaza... reveal an intent to physically destroy Palestinians as a group," Callamard said "states must now focus their efforts on making these calls a reality."
"Third states must apply political pressure on the warring parties to implement the U.N. Security Council resolution adopted yesterday demanding an immediate cease-fire, use their influence to insist that Israel abides by the resolution, including by stopping the shelling and lifting restrictions on humanitarian aid," said Callamard. "They must impose a comprehensive arms embargo against all parties to the conflict. They must also pressure Hamas and other armed groups to free all civilian hostages."
The U.N. report was released the same day that the U.N Security Council adopted a resolution demanding an immediate, temporary cease-fire for the remainder of the month of Ramadan—the first cease-fire resolution to pass at the council following three that failed due to the U.S. vetoing the measures.
The U.S., which gives Israel $3.8 billion in annual military aid and has continued to provide support throughout the bombardment, abstained from voting on Monday's resolution and infuriated human rights experts by baselessly claiming the vote was "nonbinding."
The U.N. report, titled Anatomy of a Genocide, detailed actions Israel has taken since beginning its bombardment of Gaza in October that could violate Article II of the Genocide Convention, including killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.
Along with killing at least 32,414 Palestinians in Gaza—73% of whom have been women and children, and the remaining 27% were not proven to have been Hamas members—Israel has also imposed mass starvation on the population, killing "10 children daily," according to the report. Israel has detained thousands of Palestinian men and boys in undisclosed locations; injured 70,000 people; forced medical personnel to perform "hazardous health procedures, such as amputations without anesthetics, including on children"; and "destroyed or severely damaged most life-sustaining infrastructure."
Callamard noted on Tuesday that the report came two months after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced an interim ruling that Israel is "plausibly" committing a genocide in Gaza and ordered the country to take action to prevent genocidal violence by its forces.
"In that time, the situation in Gaza has grown exponentially worse, with thousands more Palestinians killed and Israel continuing to refuse to comply with the ICJ ruling to ensure provision of sufficient humanitarian aid to Palestinians as human-made famine edges closer each day and more people starve to death," said Callamard.
The secretary general echoed a call in the report, which was compiled by Francesca Albanese, special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, for the full funding of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
Israel said Sunday it will no longer permit UNRWA aid trucks to deliver humanitarian relief in northern Gaza, where one-third of children under age 2 are now suffering from acute malnutrition. The U.S. officially suspended UNRWA funding through March 2025 on Monday after President Joe Biden signed a new spending package into law.
The U.S. led several countries in cutting funding to the agency in January after Israel claimed 12 of UNRWA's 13,000 employees in Gaza had been involved in the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel in October. Countries including Finland, Canada, and Australia have since reinstated funding.
Callamard also called on all states, particularly powerful Western countries that are allied with Israel, including the U.S., to support international authorities as they try to hold Israeli officials to account for the mass killing and starving of civilians in Gaza. Israel has refused to allow U.N. experts and other independent human rights monitors access to Gaza.
"Helping to prevent genocide also means supporting accountability efforts including the ongoing investigation by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and exercising universal jurisdiction to bring those suspected of crimes under international law to justice," said Callamard.
The secretary general noted that momentum has grown in recent days around international calls for a cease-fire, but said a desperately needed halt in fighting requires a concerted push by influential states to become a reality.
"An enduring cease-fire," said Callamard, "remains the best way to enforce the ICJ's provisional measures to prevent genocide and further crimes and civilian suffering."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Abortion Defenders Decry 'Baseless' Attack on Mifepristone as SCOTUS Hears Case
"The overturn of Roe was just the first step in the far right's relentless campaign to restrict women's reproductive freedom," said one advocate. "We always knew they would come for medication abortion, too."
Mar 26, 2024
As the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case brought by right-wing activists seeking to sharply limit access to a commonly used abortion pill, reproductive rights advocates renewed warnings that Republicans' endgame isn't just making abortion a states' rights issue, but rather forcing a nationwide ban on all forms of the medical procedure.
Thehigh court justices—including six conservatives, half of them appointed by former President Donald Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—are hearing oral arguments in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a case brought by the right-wing Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of anti-abortion doctors. The case involves the abortion pill known by the generic name mifepristone, which was first approved by the FDA in 2000 as part of a two-drug protocol to terminate early-stage pregnancies.
"If the Supreme Court refuses to follow the evidence and imposes medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone, it will be just another stepping stone in the anti-abortion movement's end goal of a nationwide ban on abortion."
"Mifepristone has been used by millions of women over the last 20 years, and its safety and effectiveness have been well-documented," said Jamila Taylor, president and CEO of the Institute for Women's Policy Research. "The drug has taken on even greater importance for women's health since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and the far right has moved to block women's access to healthcare at every turn."
In a dubious practice known as "judge shopping," the plaintiffs filed their complaint in Amarillo, Texas, where Matthew Kacsmaryk, the sole federal district judge and a Trump appointee, ruled last April that the FDA's approval of mifepristone was illegal. Shortly after Kacsmaryk's ruling, a federal judge in Washington state issued a contradictory decision that blocked the FDA from removing mifepristone from the market. The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently appealed Kacsmaryk's ruling.
Later in April 2023, the Supreme Court issued a temporary order that allowed mifepristone to remain widely available while legal challenges continued. A three-judge panel of the right-wing 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last August that the FDA's 2016 move to allow mifepristone to be taken later in pregnancy, mailed directly to patients, and prescribed by healthcare professionals other than doctors, was likely illegal. However, the court also allowed the pill to remain on the market pending the outcome of litigation.
In an analysis of the case published Tuesday, jurist Amy Howe explained:
There are three separate questions before the justices on Tuesday. The first one is whether the challengers have a legal right to sue, known as standing, at all. The FDA maintains that they do not, because the individual doctors do not prescribe mifepristone and are not obligated to do anything as a result of the FDA's decision to allow other doctors to prescribe the drug.
The court of appeals held that the medical groups have standing because of the prospect that one of the groups' members might have to treat women who had been prescribed mifepristone and then suffered complications—which, the FDA stresses, are "exceedingly rare"—requiring emergency care. But the correct test, the FDA and [mifepristone maker] Danco maintain, is not whether the groups' members will suffer a possible injury, but an imminent injury.
Destiny Lopez, acting co-CEO of the Guttmacher Institute, called the plaintiffs' claims "baseless."
"If the Supreme Court refuses to follow the evidence and imposes medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone, it will be just another stepping stone in the anti-abortion movement's end goal of a nationwide ban on abortion," she said on Tuesday. "As the court weighs its decision, let's be clear that the only outcome that respects facts and science is maintaining full access to mifepristone."
As more than 20 states have banned or restricted abortion since the Supreme Court's June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling overturnedRoe v. Wade and voided half a century of federal abortion rights, people have increasingly turned to medication abortion to terminate unwanted pregnancies. And while Republicans have often claimed that overturning Roe was not meant to ban all abortions but merely to leave the issue up to the states, GOP-authored forced pregnancy bills and statements by Republican lawmakers and candidates including Trump—who last week endorsed a 15-week national ban—belie conservatives' goal of nationwide prohibition.
Project 2025, a coalition of more than 100 right-wing groups including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and other anti-abortion organizations, wants to require the FDA to ban drugs used for medication abortions, protect employers who refuse to include contraceptive coverage in insurance plans, and increase surveillance of abortion and maternal mortality reporting. The coalition is reportedly drafting executive orders through which Trump, if reelected, could roll back Biden administration policies aimed at protecting and expanding abortion access.
"The overturn of Roe was just the first step in the far right's relentless campaign to restrict women's reproductive freedom. We always knew they would come for medication abortion, too," Taylor said. "But conservatives seeking to block access to mifepristone are not concerned about women's safety; they want to block all abortion options for women and prevent them from making their own reproductive decisions, even in their own homes."
Right-wing groups including the Heritage Foundation have been pressing Trump to invoke the Comstock laws, a series of anti-obscenity statutes passed in 1873 during the Ulysses S. Grant administration. One of the laws outlawed using the U.S. Postal Service to send contraceptives and punished offenders with up to five years' hard labor. Named after Victorian-era anti-vice crusader and U.S. postal inspector Anthony Comstock, the laws were condemned by progressives of the day, with one syndicated newspaper editorial accusing Comstock of striking "a dastard's blow at liberty and law in the United States."
Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern said Tuesday that far-right Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—who wrote the majority opinion in Dobbs—"are clearly eager to revive the Comstock Act as a nationwide ban on medication abortion, and maybe procedural abortion, too."
"That would subject abortion providers in all 50 states to prosecution and imprisonment," he added. "No congressional action needed."
Progressive U.S. lawmakers joined reproductive rights advocates in rallying outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
"Mifepristone is safe and effective and has been used in our country for decades," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). "These far-right justices need to stop legislating from the bench."
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) asserted that "medication abortion is safe, effective, and routine healthcare."
"Over half of U.S. abortions are done this way and we have decades of scientific evidence to back up its safety," she added. "SCOTUS must protect access to mifepristone and we must affirm abortion care as the human right that it is."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Warn of Toxins in GM Corn Amid US-Mexico Trade Dispute
"The Mexican government is both wise and on solid ground in refusing to allow its people to participate in the experiment that the U.S. government is seeking to impose."
Mar 26, 2024
Friends of the Earth U.S. on Monday released a brief backing Mexico's ban on genetically modified corn for human consumption, which the green group recently submitted to a dispute settlement panel charged with considering the U.S. government's challenge to the policy.
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced plans to phase out the herbicide glyphosate as well as genetically modified (GM) or genetically engineered (GE) corn in 2020. Last year he issued an updated decree making clear the ban does not apply to corn imports for livestock feed and industrial use. Still, the Biden administration objected and, after fruitless formal negotiations, requested the panel under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
"The U.S. government has not presented an 'appropriate' risk assessment to the tribunal as called for in the USMCA dispute because such an assessment has never been done in the U.S. or anywhere in the world," said agricultural economist Charles Benbrook, who wrote the brief with Kendra Klein, director of science at Friends of the Earth U.S.
"The U.S. is, in effect, asking Mexico to trust the completeness and accuracy of the initial GE corn safety assessments carried out 15 to 30 years ago by the companies working to bring GE corn events to market."
The group's 13-page brief lays out health concerns related to GM corn and glyphosate, and the shortcomings of U.S. analyses and policies. It also stresses the stakes of the panel's decision, highlighting that "corn is the caloric backbone of the Mexican food supply, accounting, on average, for 50% of the calories and protein in the Mexican diet."
Blasting the Biden administration's case statement to the panel as "seriously deficient," Klein said Monday that "it lacks basic information about the toxins expressed in contemporary GMO corn varieties and their levels. The U.S. submission also ignores dozens of studies linking the insecticidal toxins and glyphosate residues found in GMO corn to adverse impacts on public health."
The brief explains that "since the commercial introduction of GE corn in 1996 and event-specific approvals in the 1990s and 2000s, dramatic changes have occurred in corn production systems. There has been an approximate four-fold increase in the number of toxins and pesticides applied on the average hectare of contemporary GE industrial corn compared to the early 1990s. Unfortunately, this upward trend is bound to continue, and may accelerate."
The U.S. statement's assurances about risks from Bacillus thuringiensis or vegetative insecticidal protein (Bt/VIP) residues "are not based on data and science," the brief warns.
"The U.S. is, in effect, asking Mexico to trust the completeness and accuracy of the initial GE corn safety assessments carried out 15 to 30 years ago by the companies working to bring GE corn events to market," the document says. "The Mexican government is both wise and on solid ground in refusing to allow its people to participate in the experiment that the U.S. government is seeking to impose on Mexico."
"The absence of any systematic monitoring of human exposure levels to Bt/VIP toxins and herbicides from consumption of corn-based foods is regrettable," the brief adds. "It is also unfortunate that the U.S. government rejected the Mexican proposal to jointly design and carry out a modern battery of studies able to overcome gaps in knowledge regarding GE corn impacts."
"The U.S. government's case against Mexico has no more scientific merit than its sham GMO regulatory regime, and should be rejected by the USMCA dispute resolution panel."
Friends of the Earth isn't the only U.S.-based group formally supporting the Mexican government in the USMCA process. The Center for Food Safety sent a 10-page submission by science director Bill Freese, an expert on biotech regulation, to the panel on March 15. His analysis addresses U.S. regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) along with the risks of GM corn and glyphosate.
"GMO regulation in the U.S. was crafted by Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, and is a critical part of our government's promotion of the biotechnology industry," Freese said last week, referring to the company known for the glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup. "The aim is to quell concerns and promote acceptance of GMOs, domestically and abroad, rather than critically evaluate potential toxicity or allergenicity."
His submission notes that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration "does not require a GE plant developer to do anything prior to marketing its GE crop or food derived from it. Instead, FDA operates what it calls a voluntary consultation program that is designed to enhance consumer confidence and speed GE crops to market."
"When governmental review is optional; and even when it's conducted, starts and ends with the regulated company's safety assurance—what's the point?" Freese asked. "Clearly, it's the PR value of a governmental rubber stamp."
"The Mexican government's prohibition of GM corn for tortillas and other masa corn products is fully justified," he asserted. "The U.S. government's case against Mexico has no more scientific merit than its sham GMO regulatory regime, and should be rejected by the USMCA dispute resolution panel."
In a Common Dreams opinion piece last week, Ernesto Hernández-López, a law professor at Chapman University in California, pointed out that Mexico's recent submission to the panel also "offers scientific proof and lots of it," including "over 150 scientific studies, referred to in peer-review journals, systemic research reviews, and more."
"Mexico incorporates perspectives from toxicology, pediatrics, plant biology, hematology, epidemiology, public health, and data mining, to name a few," he wrote. "This clearly and loudly responds to American persistence. The practical result: American leaders cannot claim there is no science supporting the decree. They may disagree with or dislike the findings, but there is proof."
The Biden administration's effort to quash the Mexican policy notably comes despite the lack of impact on trade. While implementing its ban last year, "Mexico also made its largest corn purchase from the U.S., 15.3 million metric tons," National Geographicreported last month.
Kenneth Smith Ramos, former Mexican chief negotiator for the USMCA, told the outlet that "right now, it may not have a big economic impact because what Mexico is using to produce flour, cornmeal, and tortillas is a very small percentage of their overall imports; but that does not mean the U.S. is not concerned with this being the tip of the iceberg."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular