SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
March, 30 2016, 11:45am EDT
Contact:
Women's Health Advocates Speak About New FDA Label Change of Medical Abortion Pill, Mifeprex
Today, the Food and Drug Administration announced the approval of an updated label for mifepristone, which is used for medical abortion. Mifepristone provides women with a safe and effective medication option for ending pregnancy. The updated labeling is more closely aligned with evidence-based medicine.
WASHINGTON
Today, the Food and Drug Administration announced the approval of an updated label for mifepristone, which is used for medical abortion. Mifepristone provides women with a safe and effective medication option for ending pregnancy. The updated labeling is more closely aligned with evidence-based medicine.
Join women's reproductive health experts to hear what this label change means for abortion providers and those seeking abortion, including in states where medical abortion is heavily restricted by state laws. More than 2.75 million women have used mifepristone as a safe option to end an early pregnancy. Despite its safety and efficacy, this drug is still unnecessarily regulated and unavailable in pharmacies. As a result, barriers to access remain.
When:
March 30, 2016
1:00 pm EST/ 10:00 am PST
Who:
* Beverly Winikoff, M.D., M.P.H., President, Gynuity Health Projects
* Carolyn Westhoff, M.D, Senior Medical Advisor, Planned Parenthood Federation of America
* Janet Crepps, Senior Counsel, Center for Reproductive Rights
* Chrisse France, Executive Director, Preterm
* Vicki Saporta, President and CEO, National Abortion Federation
Where: Audio Press Conference
Below are statements from abortion providers celebrating this change:
Amy Hagstrom Miller, President and CEO, Whole Woman's Health:
"Today's FDA announcement of a label change to Mifepristone is a significant advancement for women in the United States. All of us at Whole Woman's Health are thrilled that the updated FDA labeling reflects evidence-based care that is best for women. People who visit our clinics deserve options for abortion care without worrying about medically unnecessary obstacles and this change allows for more women to get the care they deserve.
"We are particularly encouraged that this updated labeling could expand the availability of abortion in Texas, where anti-choice politicians continue to interfere in women's personal health decisions, enacting laws such as HB2 that deny women the ability to make their own decisions about whether and when to become a parent.
"Prior to HB2, 40 to 50 percent of our patients at Whole Woman's Health chose medication abortion. Since HB2 went into effect, that figure has decreased dramatically. For the past two years only about 5 percent of the women we serve in Texas have been able to get the medication abortion care they wanted because HB2's barriers were insurmountable. This label change will dramatically expand access for women not only in Texas, but throughout our clinics nationwide.
"While we appreciate this step forward, we also acknowledge that there are still too many restrictions preventing women from quality care. The reality is that low-income women, women of color and rural women bear the brunt of abortion care restrictions. We will continue to fight for the day when all women have access to the compassionate and comprehensive reproductive health care that we provide at our clinics.
"Whole Woman's Health has a strong commitment to make medication abortion an option for all our patients and we look forward to implementing this new label change in our clinics in the coming days."
Chrisse France, Executive Director, Preterm:
"Today's FDA announcement is good news for Ohio women and families. The label change for medication abortion will mean that it will once again be a real option for Preterm's patients and women across the state. We will no longer be forced to practice medicine mandated by politicians whose ultimate goal is to shut us down. The updated label is more aligned with evidence-based medicine and has the potential to expand abortion access for Ohio women.
"In 2011, in an attempt to decrease access to abortion, politicians forced Ohio abortion providers to follow an outdated FDA protocol, under the guise of protecting women's health. In reality, this law simply made medication abortion unnecessarily costly and nearly impossible to access.
"The situation isn't perfect. Medication abortion is still being treated more restrictively than other medications. That said, we are pleased to announce that as of today we will be offering medication abortion to more women, with fewer required visits.
"Preterm is proud to have been part of the clinical trials in the 1990s that led to FDA approval of medication abortion and we look forward to offering medication abortion to a broader group of women immediately in our clinic."
LATEST NEWS
No Thanks to These 52 Dems, House Defeats Bill Enabling Trump Assault on Nonprofits
"Every single Democrat who voted for this is not taking the threat of Trump remotely seriously and should be disqualified from any leadership positions moving forward," said Georgia State Rep. Ruwa Romman.
Nov 13, 2024
Legislation that would have handed President-elect Donald Trump sweeping power to investigate and shutter news outlets, government watchdogs, humanitarian organizations, and other nonprofits was defeated in the House of Representatives on Tuesday after a coalition of progressive advocacy groups and lawmakers mobilized against it, warning of the bill's dire implications for the right to dissent.
But 52 Democratic lawmakers—including Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.)—apparently did not share the grave concerns expressed by the ACLU and other leading rights groups, opting to vote alongside 204 Republicans in favor of the bill.
One Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, joined 144 Democrats in voting no.
The measure ultimately fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to approve legislation under the fast-track procedure used by the bill's supporters, but progressives wasted no time spotlighting the Democrats who supported the measure.
"If you're looking for a handy list of Democrats who have no fucking clue what is about to hit and need their spines stiffened ASAP, this is a good place to start,"
wrote Leah Greenberg, co-executive director of the advocacy group Indivisible.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who
vocally opposed the legislation, wrote that "these 52 Democrats voted to give Trump the power to shut down any nonprofit he wants."
"The NAACP, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, no organization would be safe," Tlaib added. "Shameful."
If passed, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act would grant the Treasury Department—soon to be under the control of a Trump nominee—the authority to unilaterally strip nonprofits of their tax-exempt status by deeming them supporters of terrorism.
The bill could be revived in the next Congress, which is likely to be under full Republican control.
Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel with the ACLU, toldThe Intercept late Tuesday that "we will continue our sustained opposition."
It is already illegal under U.S. law to provide material backing for terrorism, and the executive branch has significant authority to target groups it considers terrorist-supporting.
"This isn't just an attack on our communities; it's a fundamental threat to free speech and democracy."
The ACLU
noted ahead of Tuesday's vote that while the bill contains "a 90-day 'cure' period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process."
"The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations," the group said. "This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as 'support,' making it virtually impossible to clear its name."
Opponents of the bill warned that Palestinian rights organizations would be uniquely imperiled if it passed.
"This bill dangerously weaponizes the Treasury against nonprofit organizations and houses of worship—Christian, Jewish, or Muslim—that dare to support Palestinian and Lebanese human rights or criticize Israel's genocidal actions," said Robert McCaw, director of government affairs at the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
"Allowing such sweeping, unchecked power would set a chilling precedent, enabling the government to selectively target and suppress voices of dissent under the guise of national security," McCaw added. "This isn't just an attack on our communities; it's a fundamental threat to free speech and democracy."
Georgia State Rep. Ruwa Romman (D-97), a Palestinian American, echoed that sentiment following Tuesday's vote and condemned the legislation's 52 Democratic supporters.
"Every single Democrat who voted for this is not taking the threat of Trump remotely seriously and should be disqualified from any leadership positions moving forward," Romman wrote on social media. "This is no longer business as usual. To agree to give him this kind of power is beyond egregious."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Ultimate Corporate Corruption': Trump Announces Musk-Led Department to Gut Regulations
"If anyone had any doubts whether the Trump government aims to serve regular people or the billionaires, they should now be resolved," said one watchdog.
Nov 13, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump announced Tuesday that Elon Musk—the world's richest man, a megadonor to the Republican's campaign, and a beneficiary of government contracts—will co-lead a not-yet-created department tasked with gutting federal regulations and slashing spending.
Musk, who leads several companies that are under federal scrutiny, will head the so-called Department of Government Efficiency alongside Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech billionaire.
"Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies," Trump declared in a statement, without explaining the funding structure of the commission or how it would achieve those sweeping objectives. Congress, which is likely to be under full Republican control come January, has authority over federal spending.
Trump said the commission "will provide advice and guidance from outside of Government, and will partner with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to drive large-scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before."
During the presidential race—into which Musk pumped more than $100 million to boost Trump—the Tesla CEO claimed a government efficiency commission would seek out $2 trillion in spending to eliminate. That sum, as The Washington Postobserved, far exceeds the combined budgets of the Pentagon and the Departments of Education and Homeland Security.
Musk acknowledged during a virtual town hall event in late October that the massive cuts he hopes to enact would bring "temporary hardship" to ordinary Americans.
He has also cast his push to gut federal regulations as an "existential" issue, claiming that "humanity will never reach Mars" unless "we get rid of the mountain of smothering regulations."
"This will send shockwaves through the system, and anyone involved in Government waste, which is a lot of people!" Musk said in the Trump team's statement announcing the commission.
"Musk not only knows nothing about government efficiency and regulation, his own businesses have regularly run afoul of the very rules he will be in position to attack."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said it is "laughable" to put "the ultimate corporate tycoon" in charge of a commission on government spending and regulations.
"The purpose of government regulations is to protect the American people," said Gilbert. "We all depend on these regulations to protect our air, water, workers, children's safety, and so much more. 'Cutting red tape' is shorthand for getting rid of the safeguards that protect us in order to benefit corporate interests. Our problem is corporate capture of so much of our public policy, not this lie that corporations are held back by too many rules."
"Musk not only knows nothing about government efficiency and regulation, his own businesses have regularly run afoul of the very rules he will be in position to attack in his new 'czar' position," Gilbert added. "This is the ultimate corporate corruption. If anyone had any doubts whether the Trump government aims to serve regular people or the billionaires, they should now be resolved."
In a report published in October, Public Citizen found that "at least three of Musk's businesses are currently under scrutiny for alleged misconduct by at least nine federal agencies."
Since endorsing Trump over the summer, Musk has exerted significant influence over the Republican leader's political operations, impacting his choice of running mate and injecting his views on candidates for key posts in the incoming administration. The New York Timesreported Wednesday that Musk "has sat in on nearly every job interview with the Trump team" and is "trying to install his Silicon Valley friends in plum positions in the next administration."
Musk, whose wealth has surged by tens of billions of dollars since Trump's victory in last week's election, has also relentlessly boosted the president-elect on X, the social media platform he purchased in 2022 and transformed into a right-wing disinformation machine.
"Get ready this January for chaos, revenge, greed, rampant abuses of power, and the unbridled control of corrupt plutocrats and oligarchs," legendary consumer advocate Ralph Nader warned over the weekend. "With Elon Musk in the lead."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Big Day... for Justice': US Jury Finds Contractor CACI Liable for Abu Ghraib Torture
"This victory is a shining light for everyone who has been oppressed and a strong warning to any company or contractor practicing different forms of torture and abuse," said one of the Iraqi plaintiffs.
Nov 12, 2024
In a landmark verdict cheered by human rights defenders around the world, a federal jury in Virginia found a U.S. military contractor liable for the torture of three prisoners at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison during the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the early 2000s.
The jury ordered CACI Premier Technology to pay each of the three Iraqi plaintiffs $3 million in compensatory damages and $11 million in punitive damages, for a total of $42 million. It is the first time that a civilian contractor has been found legally responsible for abusing Abu Ghraib detainees.
The lawsuit against CACI—filed in 2008 by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of Suhail Al Shimari, Asa'ad Al Zuba'e, and Salah Al-Ejaili—alleged that company officials conspired with U.S. military personnel in subjecting the plaintiffs to torture and other crimes.
As CCR noted Tuesday:
The plaintiffs brought their case under the Alien Tort Statute, a 1789 federal law that allows foreign nationals to seek redress in U.S. courts for certain violations of international law. This historic outcome follows 16 years of litigation, more than 20 attempts by CACI to have the case dismissed, and a previous trial in which the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Never before this case had survivors of U.S. post-9/11 torture testified in a U.S. courtroom. It also featured testimony from U.S. generals, CACI employees, and former [military police officers] involved in the torture.
"Today is a big day for me and for justice," said Al-Ejaili. "I've waited a long time for this day."
"This victory isn't only for the three plaintiffs in this case against a corporation," he added. "This victory is a shining light for everyone who has been oppressed and a strong warning to any company or contractor practicing different forms of torture and abuse."
CCR legal director Baher Azmy said that "our clients have fought bravely for 16 years in search of justice for the horrors they endured at Abu Ghraib, against all of the challenges this massive private military contractor threw in their way over the years to avoid basic accountability for its role in this shameful episode in American history."
"We are awed by our clients' courage and by the power of their testimony in court, and we are grateful that this jury knew enough to credit their story over the deflections of CACI," Azmy added. "We thank the jury for affording our clients the measure of justice they came to a United States court to seek."
Like Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib became a byword for U.S. torture during the Bush administration as it waged a worldwide war on terrorism following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The prison's worldwide notoriety stems from the leak and publication in 2004 of photos showing U.S. troops torturing and abusing Abu Ghraib detainees, both living and dead, often with smiles on their faces.
A 2004 investigation by U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Anthony Jones and Maj. Gen. George Fay found that CACI employees participated in and encouraged the torture of Abu Ghraib prisoners.
Investigators found that employees of CACI and Titan Corporation (now L3 Technologies) tortured Abu Ghraib detainees and encouraged U.S. troops to do likewise. Dozens of Abu Ghraib detainees died in U.S. custody, some of them as a result of being tortured to death. Abu Ghraib prisoners endured torture ranging from rape and being attacked with dogs to being forced to eat pork and renounce Islam.
A separate U.S. Army report concluded that most Abu Ghraib prisoners were innocent, with the Red Cross estimating that between 70-90% of inmates there were wrongfully detained. These include women who were held as bargaining chips to induce suspected militants to surrender.
Eleven low-ranking U.S. soldiers were convicted and jailed for their roles in Abu Ghraib torture. Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the prison's commanding officer, was demoted. No other high-ranking military officer faced accountability for the abuse. Senior Bush administration officials—who had authorized many of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used at prisons including Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay—lied about their knowledge of the torture. None of them were ever held accountable.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular