Women's Health Care Providers Ask U.S Supreme Court to Take On Texas Clinic Shutdown Law
As few as 10 clinics will remain in Texas if nation’s highest court fails to intervene
Today a coalition of women's health care providers represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights took their fight against Texas' clinic shutdown law to the nation's highest court. The group formally requested that the U.S. Supreme Court review a June 2015 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which upheld a law that would close more than 75 percent of abortion clinics in Texas and cut off access to safe and legal abortions for millions of Texas women.
The Supreme Court has twice before stepped in to block enforcement of the law--once in October 2014 and then again in June 2015. Without Supreme Court intervention, only 10 clinics will remain open in a state that had 41 prior to the law's enactment.
Today's filing asks the Court to formally review the case to permanently block enforcement of two of the most harmful components of HB2. The first provision requires that all abortion providers obtain local hospital admitting privileges, a mandate which has already forced the closure of over half the clinics in the state. The second provision requires every reproductive health care facility offering abortion services to meet the same hospital-like building standards as an ambulatory surgical center (ASC), which can amount to millions of dollars in medically unnecessary facility updates.
Said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:
"Texas politicians are trying to sneak around the Constitution and more than four decades of Supreme Court precedent with sham laws that do nothing to improve women's health care. This Court has the power to stop the sham.
"Without the Court's intervention, the impact on Texas women will be immediate and devastating, imposing insurmountable burdens on their access to essential reproductive health care statewide.
"The Constitution protects every woman's right to make her own decisions about whether and when to end a pregnancy. We are confident that the Court will take this opportunity to once again protect those rights for the women of Texas."
Said Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman's Health, lead plaintiff in the case:
"I've said it before and I'll say it again: these restrictions have nothing to do with protecting women and everything to do with closing down clinics and pushing abortion care out of reach.
"When politicians force clinics to close, they exponentially multiply the number of devastating albeit unnecessary hurdles that Texas women must overcome when seeking reproductive health services. Our ability to get safe medical care should not depend on whether we have the resources necessary to navigate a horrific and complex obstacle course dreamt up by anti-choice lawmakers. This is the real world and these laws have real implications on real women's lives. We're hopeful that the Supreme Court will take a stand, hear our case, and remind lawmakers that women's health is not a game."
Since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court has continually maintained women have a constitutional right to decide whether to end or continue a pregnancy--protected by the 14th Amendment right to liberty, which is central to personal dignity and autonomy.
Further, the Court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed a woman's constitutional right to abortion and rejected medically unnecessary regulations meant to create substantial obstacles for a woman seeking to end a pregnancy. Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter made clear that "these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment."
Major medical groups oppose the types of restrictions found in Texas' clinic shutdown law. The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) jointly submitted an amicus brief opposing the law to the Fifth Circuit, stating that "H.B. 2 does not serve the health of women in Texas but instead jeopardizes women's health by restricting access to abortion providers." Medical experts confirm that legal abortion care in the U.S. is extremely safe, and that laws like Texas' would do nothing to make it safer.
Clinic shutdown laws have swept the South in recent years, threatening to further devastate abortion access in a region already facing limited availability of reproductive health care services. The last abortion clinic in Mississippi is awaiting a decision on whether the U.S. Supreme Court will review its state's clinic shutdown law when the Court's term starts on October 1 while health care providers in Louisiana are awaiting a federal court ruling which could shutter all but one clinic in the state. Courts have blocked similar measures in Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Alabama.
Case History: Whole Woman's Health v. Cole (formerly Whole Woman's Health v. Lakey)
Following a lawsuit brought by the Center for Reproductive rights on behalf of Whole Woman's Health and several other Texas health care providers in April 2014, a federal district court blocked two of the most harmful restriction of Texas' House Bill 2 (HB2) in late August 2014: the ambulatory surgical center requirement and the admitting-privileges requirement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed that decision in large part on October 2, 2014, allowing the requirements to immediately take effect. Because forcing hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements on every clinic would amount to a multi-million dollar tax on abortion services, all but 7 reproductive health care facilities in the state were prevented from offering safe and legal abortion services for 12 days. On October 14, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the injunction in large part, allowing the previously closed clinics to reopen their doors while the state's appeal moved forward.
On June 9, 2015, the Fifth Circuit's final decision in the appeal once again upheld the state restrictions in substantial part, this time threatening to shutter all but 10 abortion providers in the state. Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to block the Fifth Circuit's decision and allow the clinics to remain open while the legal challenge continued. The Center for Reproductive Rights has now asked the nation's highest court to formally review the Texas law. The Court is likely to decide whether it will hear the case sometime before the end of 2015.
The clinics and physicians in this challenge are represented by Stephanie Toti, David Brown, Julie Rikelman and Janet Crepps of the Center for Reproductive Rights, J. Alexander Lawrence of the law firm Morrison & Foerster, and Austin attorneys Jan Soifer and Patrick O'Connell of the law firm O'Connell & Soifer.
The Center for Reproductive Rights is a global human rights organization of lawyers and advocates who ensure reproductive rights are protected in law as fundamental human rights for the dignity, equality, health, and well-being of every person.
(917) 637-3600Climate Movement Sounds Alarm on Trump Picking 'Big Oil Sellout' JD Vance for VP
"JD Vance will sell out to the highest bidder, whether that's Trump or the fossil fuel industry," said one Sunrise Movement campaigner. "That makes him dangerous."
Climate campaigners reacted to former U.S. President Donald Trump's selection of Sen. JD Vance as his running mate Monday by highlighting the Ohio Republican's climate denial and strong support for the fossil fuel industry—one of his top campaign contributors.
"Like Donald Trump, JD Vance has proven that he will make it a top priority to roll back climate protections while answering to the demands of oil and gas CEOs," Sunrise Movement communications director Stevie O'Hanlon said in a statement. "Vance is one of Congress' biggest recipients of donations from oil companies."
"JD Vance not only flip-flopped on supporting Trump, he flip-flopped on climate," she continued. "He went from expressing concern about climate change before running for the Senate, to voting to gut [Environmentl Protection Agency] protections and denying that there even is a climate change crisis."
O'Hanlon added: "JD Vance will sell out to the highest bidder, whether that's Trump or the fossil fuel industry. That makes him dangerous. Donald Trump was the worst president for climate in U.S. history. JD Vance will empower Donald Trump to enact even worse damage on our planet in a second Trump administration."
Some of Trump's key first-term Cabinet appointees—including Rex Tillerson, his first secretary of state, and Ryan Zinke, who headed the Interior Department—were former fossil fuel executives or had track records of supporting the oil, gas, and coal industries.
Trump's White House tenure was also marked by an
aggressive rollback of climate and environmental regulations and protections.
Food & Water Watch Action deputy director Mitch Jones said that "just like Trump himself, JD Vance is a fossil fuel backer and climate change denier that poses a serious risk to public health and our environment."
"Among the countless reasons that Trump and Vance shouldn't be elected to lead our country, the duo represents an existential threat to a livable climate future for all Americans and people around the globe," Jones added.
JL Andrepont of 350 Action asserted that "we are facing a dire need to ward off further climate catastrophe and injustice, so let's be clear: JD Vance is another climate-denying authoritarian who poses massive danger to this country."
"He has praised the horrific Project 2025 plan and said there are 'good ideas in there,'" they continued. "He says he would be totally fine with a federal ban on abortion. And as the effects of climate change accelerate at an alarming pace right in front of our eyes, Vance is a strong supporter of the oil and gas industry who claims that climate change is not a threat."
"We must reject him and all climate deniers at the polls," Andrepont stressed.
Targeting Corporate Landlords, Biden to Unveil National Rent Control Plan
"The rent is too damn high—and rent control is a real fix," one group said, praising the proposal.
As former U.S. President Donald Trump secured the Republican nomination and announced his running mate on Monday, Democratic President Joe Biden prepared to unveil a proposal that would cap annual rent increases at 5% for tenants of major landlords.
After Biden briefly previewed the proposal during a press conference last week, The Washington Postreported on the planned announcement Monday, citing three people familiar with the matter. The Associated Press separately confirmed the plan.
Biden is set to formally introduce the proposal on Tuesday in Nevada, which "has seen among the biggest explosions of housing costs in the country," the Post noted. "Democrats have grown increasingly concerned that Trump could win the state in November."
The president, who is seeking reelection, will propose taking a tax benefit away from landlords who hike rents by more than 5% annually, according to the reporting. The plan would only apply to the existing housing stock of landlords who own more than 50 units and would require congressional approval—so it is not expected to go anywhere unless Biden wins in November and Democrats secure majorities in both chambers of Congress.
As the newspaper detailed:
The Biden administration is also pushing numerous policies to increase housing construction, through incentives to local governments to change their zoning codes and new federal financial incentives for builders.If implemented, they could bring 2 million new units to the market in addition to the 1.6 million already in the pipeline.
"It would make little sense to make this move by itself. But you have to look at it in the context of the moves they propose to make to expand supply," said Jim Parrott, nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute and co-owner of Parrott Ryan Advisors. "The question is: Even if we get all these new units built, what do we do about rising rents in the meantime? Coming up with a relatively targeted bridge to help renters while new supply is coming online makes a fair amount of sense."
While housing industry representatives criticized the reported proposal, Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, told The Associated Press that having it in effect in recent years could have helped renters.
"The recent unprecedented increases in homelessness in communities across the country are the result of those equally unprecedented—and unjustified—rent hikes of a couple years ago," she said. "Had such protections against rent gouging been in place then, many families could have avoided homelessness and stayed stably housed."
Other rent control advocates and progressive officials also welcomed the plan, with Kendra Brooks—the first Working Families Party member ever elected to Philadelphia City Council—declaring that "this is exactly the kind of leadership that working families need!"
Jacobin's Branko Marcetic said that "this is huge," particularly considering that "housing has rapidly climbed as a cost-of-living concern (and is also under 30s' most important issue)."
Multiple campaigners and organizations credited housing advocates for pushing rent control at the national level.
"It's amazing how rapidly the conversation around rent caps has changed," noted Shamus Roller, executive director of the National Housing Law Project. "Tenant organizing has created this change. It's a proposal for Congress which will face serious headwinds but the president just called for rent caps (even if only temporarily)."
The Debt Collective said, "We will say it over and over again: The rent is too damn high—and rent control is a real fix."
"Rent caps wouldn't be a national policy proposal without tenants unions across the country making it possible through organizing," the group added. "On our way to land without landlords, remember that rent control works. The 99%'s need for a roof over our head should not be 1% profits."
Campaigners Demand Global Ban on Deep-Sea Mining
As talks resume, supporters of a moratorium are also calling for the ouster of the International Seabed Authority's leader, who faces an election on July 29.
As talks to establish global policies on deep-sea mining resumed in Jamaica on Monday, Greenpeace International renewed its demand for a moratorium on the practice, the path also backed other civil society and Indigenous groups, at least hundreds of science and policy experts, and 27 countries.
"The science is clear—there can't be deep-sea mining without environmental cost and the only solution is a moratorium. The more we know about deep-sea mining, the harder it is to justify it," said Greenpeace campaigner Louisa Casson, who is attending the United Nations-affiliated International Seabed Authority's (ISA) 29th session in Kingston.
"Governments at the ISA must not dance to the tune of the industry and approve rushed regulations for the benefit of a few over the interests of Pacific communities and the opinion of scientists," Casson argued, as companies and countries see chances to cash in on the clean energy transition by extracting metals including cobalt, copper, and nickel.
"The deep ocean sustains crucial processes that make the entire planet habitable, from driving ocean currents that regulate our weather to storing carbon and buffering our planet against the impacts of climate change."
The Associated Pressreported Monday that although the ISA has not allowed any extraction during debates, it "has granted 31 mining exploration contracts," and "much of the ongoing exploration is centered in the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone, which covers 1.7 million square miles (4.5 million square kilometers) between Hawaii and Mexico."
The Mexican government last year endorsed a moratorium and Democratic Hawaii Gov. Josh Green last week signed a bill banning seabed mining in state waters, citing "environmental risks and constitutional rights to have a clean and healthy environment."
Ahead of the meeting in Jamaica, Deep Sea Conservation Coalition campaign lead Sofia Tsenikli highlighted that "gouging minerals from the seafloor poses an existential threat that goes far beyond the immediate destruction of deep-sea wildlife and habitats."
"The deep ocean sustains crucial processes that make the entire planet habitable, from driving ocean currents that regulate our weather to storing carbon and buffering our planet against the impacts of climate change," Tsenikli said. "States must now protect the ocean and not allow any more damage."
The ISA was established under the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea and a related 1994 agreement, and is responsible for waters not under the control of specific nations. As Common Dreamsreported earlier this month, some diplomats have accused British lawyer Michael Lodge, its current secretary-general, of trying to speed up the start of mining.
"The rush to complete the mining code was triggered by the Pacific island state of Nauru, which is expected to submit a mining license application on behalf of Canada's the Metals Company (TMC) later this year, regardless of whether or not regulations are complete," Reutersnoted Monday.
After ISA's 36-member Council negotiates the "Mining Code" over the next two weeks, its full Assembly is scheduled to meet on July 29 to vote on the next secretary-general, with Lodge facing a challenge from Brazil's Leticia Carvalho for the top post.
"It is time for change at the ISA," Casson of Greenpeace declared Monday. "A third term for Michael Lodge would not only put the oceans under threat but also risk further damaging public trust in the regulator. Mining companies are impatient to get started and mounting evidence indicates that Lodge is overstepping his supposedly-neutral role to align with commercial interests."
"The ISA must listen to millions of people and the growing number of governments calling for a halt to deep-sea mining," she added. "It is time to put conservation at the heart of the ISA's work."
In preparation for the talks in Kingston, Environment Oregon Research & Policy Center, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) Education Fund, and Frontier Group last month released a report showing that not only would deep-sea mining destroy "a vibrant, biodiverse place, teeming with complex ecosystems and thousands, possibly millions of species," but also it isn't necessary.
"Disposable electronic devices are creating a toxic e-waste mess. Now, some mining companies are trying to convince policymakers that we need to wreak havoc on the ocean to source the materials to make more," said Charlie Fisher of the Oregon State PIRG Foundation. "This report shows that we don't need to ruin the deep sea to make the products we need. There is a more sustainable path: Make long-lasting, fixable electronics and recycle them when they no longer work."