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
November, 30 2016, 12:30pm EDT
Contact:
Email:,center.press@reprorights.org
Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, ACLU File Challenges to Abortion Restrictions in Three States
Women’s health organizations take fight against unconstitutional measures to state, federal courts
Abortion rights groups today announced a new wave of litigation to protect and expand access to abortion, with more to come. The three simultaneous lawsuits announced today challenge medically unnecessary abortion restrictions in Alaska, Missouri, and North Carolina. This follows the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down two Texas laws that devastated access to abortion in the state. Since the ruling, abortion restrictions in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Oklahoma and Wisconsin have already been blocked -- and that's just the beginning.
"Today's filing is a major step in the fight to ensure all women can get safe and legal abortions in their own communities, when they need them," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "We are a nation of laws, and the Center is prepared to use the full force of the law to ensure women's fundamental rights are protected and respected. We are proud to stand with our partners in challenging these unconstitutional measures and vow to continue the fight for women's health, equality, and dignity"
"Individual rights and freedom go to the heart of who we are as a country, including the right to access abortion. We are going to fight back state by state and law by law until every person has the right to pursue the life they want, including people who decide to end a pregnancy," said Dr. Raegan McDonald-Mosley, chief medical officer, Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "As a health care provider, we see firsthand what it means for people who are forced to cross state lines, travel hundreds of miles, or wait weeks to get an abortion, if they can at all. These restrictions have a disproportionate impact on those who already face far too many barriers to health care as people of color, people who live in rural areas, or people with low incomes. These laws are dangerous, unjust, and unconstitutional -- and they will come down."
"Because of laws like the ones we are challenging today, for too many women across our country the constitutional right to have an abortion is more theoretical than real," said Jennifer Dalven, Director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. "With the cases we are filing today, we are sending a clear message that we won't stop working until every woman can get the care she needs no matter who she is, where she lives, or how much money she makes."
Specifically, the lawsuits challenge the following restrictions on women's access to safe and legal abortion:
- medically unnecessary Alaska restrictions, passed more than 40 years ago, that ban abortion in outpatient health centers after the first trimester of pregnancy, forcing many women to travel out of state for procedures--if they can at all (filing forthcoming);
- a ban on abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy in North Carolina which was recently amended to further restrict the already narrow health exception to extremely limited health emergencies (see complaint here);
- and medically unnecessary restrictions in Missouri that have closed all but one health center that provides abortion in the state (see complaint here).
Attorneys from the ACLU, the Center, and PPFA represent the following plaintiffs in each case:
- In the Alaska case, Plaintiff Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and Hawaiian Islands is represented by Janet Crepps of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Brigitte Amiri of the ACLU, Carrie Flaxman of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Tara Rich and Eric Glatt of the ACLU of Alaska, and Susan Orlansky of Reeves, Amodio, LLC.
- In the North Carolina case, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is represented by Maithreyi Ratakonda and Carrie Flaxman of Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Beverly Gray, M.D. and Elizabeth Deans, M.D. are represented by Andrew Beck of the ACLU; Amy Bryant M.D., M.S.C.R., is represented by Genevieve Scott and Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights; Irena Como and Christopher Brook of the ACLU of North Carolina is representing all plaintiffs.
- In the Missouri case, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region are represented by Melissa Cohen and Jennifer Sandman of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Arthur Benson of Arthur Benson & Associates.
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that women have a constitutional right to decide whether to end or continue a pregnancy and states cannot ban abortion prior to viability. When these bans of this nature are challenged in court, they do not pass constitutional muster. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court refused to review North Dakota's ban on abortion as early as 6 weeks of pregnancy and Arkansas' ban on abortion at 12 weeks of pregnancy that had been struck down by lower courts; in 2014, the nation's highest court refused to review Arizona's ban on abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy after it had been declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's Whole Woman's Health decision also affirmed that states cannot pass sham restrictions on abortion; less than one day after issuing their ruling in Whole Woman's Health, the Supreme Court refused to review similar clinic shutdown laws from Mississippi and Wisconsin that had been invalidated by lower courts that found they imposed on undue burden on women seeking abortions.
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) 637-3600LATEST NEWS
Unions Note Chavez-DeRemer's Record, 'But Donald Trump Is the President-Elect'
The DOL pick has sparked debates about how much she will actually "do right by workers" and whether "Teamsters president Sean O'Brien and Donald Trump are effectively dividing the labor movement."
Nov 23, 2024
Amid a flurry of Friday night announcements about key roles in the next Trump administration, one stood out to union leaders and other advocates for working people: Congresswoman Lori Chavez-DeRemer, an Oregon Republican, for labor secretary.
Chavez-DeRemer, who lost her reelection bid to Democrat Janelle Bynum earlier this month, "has built a pro-labor record in Congress, including as one of only three Republicans to co-sponsor the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act and one of eight Republicans to co-sponsor the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler in a statement.
"But Donald Trump is the president-elect of the United States—not Rep. Chavez-DeRemer—and it remains to be seen what she will be permitted to do as secretary of labor in an administration with a dramatically anti-worker agenda," she stressed. "Despite having distanced himself from Project 2025 during his campaign, President-elect Trump has put forward several Cabinet nominees with strong ties to Project 2025. That 900-page document has proposals that would strip overtime pay, eliminate the right to organize, and weaken health and safety standards."
"You can stand with working people, or you can stand with Project 2025, but you can't stand with both."
"The AFL-CIO will work with anyone who wants to do right by workers, but we will reject and defeat any attempt to roll back the rights and protections that working people have won with decades of blood, sweat, and tears," added Schuler, whose group endorsed Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and developed a guide detailing how the right-wing initiative would be catastrophic for working people. "You can stand with working people, or you can stand with Project 2025, but you can't stand with both."
Seth Harris, a Northeastern University professor who served as acting secretary of labor under former President Barack Obama, toldBloomberg that "the president-elect has nominated a unicorn: a genuine pro-labor Republican."
"This is about the best nomination for the Labor Department that Democrats could have hoped for," he said, but "we don't know if she's going to be given the freedom to carry out the agenda that she supported in Congress."
Some skeptics and critics highlighted that Chavez-DeRemer—who only entered the U.S. House of Representatives last year—has just a 10% lifetime score from the AFL-CIO. Among them was longtime labor reporter Mike Elk, who warned, "This is divide and conquer politics at its worst as Trump prepares for an attack on federal workers unions!"
Others, such as Progressive Mass policy director Jonathan Cohn and University of California, Los Angeles historian Trevor Griffey, have suggested that Trump's U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) nominee supporting the PRO Act was simply her "posturing in a swing district."
Like the AFL-CIO, the nation's two largest teachers unions shared nuanced reactions to Trump choosing Chavez-DeRemer. Alongside many other labor groups, both backed Harris after President Joe Biden left the race—though Trump's victory has ignited heated debates over the Democratic Party's failure to win over working-class voters in a cycle that featured Trump cosplaying in a Pennsylvania McDonald's and a garbage truck while cozying up to the world's richest man, Elon Musk, and praising him for firing striking workers.
National Education Association president Becky Pringle said in a statement that "across America, most of us want the same things—strong public schools to help every student grow into their full brilliance and good jobs where workers earn living wages to provide for their families."
Noting Chavez-DeRemer's co-sponsorship of "pro-student, pro-public school, pro-worker legislation" and votes "against gutting the Department of Education, against school vouchers, and against cuts to education funding," Pringle asserted that "this record stands in stark contrast to Donald Trump's anti-worker, anti-union record, and his extreme Project 2025 agenda that would gut workplace protections, make it harder for workers to unionize, and diminish the voice of working people."
"During his first term, Trump appointed anti-worker, anti-union National Labor Relations Board members," she continued. "Now he is threatening to take the unprecedented action of removing current pro-worker NLRB members in the middle of their term, replacing them with his corporate friends. And he is promising to appoint judges and justices who are hostile to workers and unions."
Trump's track
record also includes nominating agency leaders and U.S. Supreme Court justices with histories of siding with companies over employees, gutting DOL regulations intended to protect workers' wages and benefits, and giving major tax cuts to wealthy individuals and corporations—policies he plans to extend with the help of an incoming GOP Congress.
"Educators and working families across the nation will be watching Lori Chavez-DeRemer as she moves through the confirmation process," said Pringle, "and hope to hear a pledge from her to continue to stand up for workers and students as her record suggests, not blind loyalty to the Project 2025 agenda."
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten called Chavez-DeRemer's selection "significant," given that "her record suggests real support of workers and their right to unionize."
"I hope it means the Trump [administration] will actually respect collective bargaining and workers' voices from Teamsters to teachers," Weingarten added, referring to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
The Teamsters notably declined to endorse in the U.S. presidential contest after the group's general president, Sean O'Brien was widely criticized by labor advocates including his predecessor for speaking at the Republican National Convention. O'Brien lobbied Trump to choose Chavez-DeRemer and welcomed the Friday development on social media, posting a photo of himself with the pair and thanking the president-elect "for putting American workers first."
"Nearly a year ago, you joined us for a Teamsters roundtable and pledged to listen to workers and find common ground to protect and respect labor in America," O'Brien wrote. "You put words into action. Now let's grow wages and improve working conditions nationwide. Congratulations to Lori Chavez-DeRemer on your nomination! North America's strongest union is ready to work with you every step of the way to expand good union jobs and rebuild our nation's middle class. Let's get to work!"
Washington Post labor reporter Lauren Kaori Gurleydescribed Trump's decision as "a coup for the Teamsters" and New York Times labor reporter Noam Scheiber called it "a bona fide win" for the union, though he added that "the way you'll know if they have substantive influence or mostly cosmetic influence is if Trump's NLRB continues pressuring Amazon to bargain with unionized workers and drivers, who the Teamsters represent."
Meanwhile, Labor Notes staff writer Luis Feliz Leon said: "Lori Chavez-DeRemer for labor secretary isn't a win for the labor movement. The PRO Act is dead. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans have party discipline. What's noteworthy: Teamsters president Sean O'Brien and Donald Trump are effectively dividing the labor movement."
Some right-wing leaders and groups have already expressed disapproval of Trump's nominee, a sign that she may need some Democratic support to get confirmed by the Senate—if the president-elect doesn't pursue recess appointments.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who serves as Senate Appropriations Committee chair and president pro tempore until Republicans take over in January, said Friday that "Americans deserve a labor secretary who understands that building a stronger economy means standing up for workers, not billionaires and giant corporations."
"We need a labor secretary who will protect workers' rights, help ensure everyone can have a secure retirement, make sure every worker gets paid the full paycheck they've earned, and that all workers are treated with dignity and respect. And as an original author of the PRO Act, I'm glad to see Rep. Chavez-DeRemer is a co-sponsor," she continued. "I look forward to carefully evaluating Rep. Chavez-DeRemer's qualifications leading up to her hearing and a thorough vetting process."
In a statement announcing the nominee, Trump said: "Lori has worked tirelessly with both Business and Labor to build America's workforce, and support the hardworking men and women of America. I look forward to working with her to create tremendous opportunity for American Workers, to expand Training and Apprenticeships, to grow wages and improve working conditions, to bring back our Manufacturing jobs."
"Together, we will achieve historic cooperation between Business and Labor that will restore the American Dream for Working Families," he added. "Lori's strong support from both the Business and Labor communities will ensure that the Labor Department can unite Americans of all backgrounds behind our Agenda for unprecedented National Success—Making America Richer, Wealthier, Stronger, and more Prosperous than ever before!"
Other key picks announced Friday included former Office of Budget and Management Director Russ Vought, a Project 2025 architect, to return as the agency's leader, and ex-professional football player Scott Turner of the Trump-allied America First Policy Institute to helm the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Trump also chose billionaire hedge fund manager
Scott Bessent, who supports his tariff plan, to run the U.S. Treasury Department. That followed the president-elect naming billionaire Wall Street CEO Howard Lutnick as his nominee for commerce secretary, meaning he will lead tariff and trade policy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report on US Killer Robots Warns of 'Reckless, Dangerous Arms Race'
"All signs point to the Pentagon developing 'killer robots' via Replicator, despite deflections from Pentagon representatives themselves," according to Public Citizen.
Nov 22, 2024
A report from the government watchdog Public Citizen released Friday gives the who, what, when, where, and why of the Pentagon's flagship Replicator initiative—a program to increase the number of weapons, particularly drones, in the hands of the U.S. military.
In the report, Public Citizen re-ups concerns about one particular aspect of the program. According to the report's author, Savannah Wooten, the Defense Department has remained ambiguous on the question of whether it is developing artificial intelligence weapons that can "deploy lethal force autonomously—without a human authorizing the specific use of force in a specific context." These types of weapons are also known as "killer robots."
"It is not yet clear whether or not these technologies are designed, tested, or intended for killing," according to the report.
"All signs point to the Pentagon developing 'killer robots' via Replicator, despite deflections from Pentagon representatives themselves," wrote Wooten in the summary of the report.
The program, which was announced last year, is part of the Department of Defense's plan to deter China.
"Replicator is meant to help us overcome [China's] biggest advantage, which is mass. More ships. More missiles. More people," said Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks in a speech announcing the project last year. That mission will be achieved specifically by "mastering the technology of tomorrow," Hicks said.
There will soon be a "Replicator 2.0" that will focus on counter-drone technologies—per a memo from the defense secretary released in September—according to Public Citizen's report.
In a letter sent in March, Public Citizen and 13 other civil society groups highlighted remarks Hicks made in 2023 as an example of the ambiguity the Pentagon has created around the issue.
"Autonomous weapons are inherently dehumanizing and unethical, no matter whether a human is 'ultimately' responsible for the use of force or not. Deploying lethal artificial intelligence weapons in battlefield conditions necessarily means inserting them into novel conditions for which they have not been programmed, an invitation for disastrous outcomes," the organizations wrote to Hicks and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.
Wooten's report reiterates that same call: "The Pentagon owes Americans clarity about its own role in advancing the autonomous weapons arms race via Replicator, as well as a detailed plan for ensuring it does not open a Pandora’s Box of new, lethal weapons on the world by refusing to hold its own operations accountable."
Additionally, "'Artificial intelligence' should not be used as a catchall justification to summon billions more in Pentagon spending, especially when the existing annual budget for the U.S. military already dwarfs every other U.S. agency and is careening towards the $1 trillion mark," Wooten wrote.
The fear that these types of weapons would open a Pandora's Box—and set off a "reckless, dangerous arms race," as Public Citizen warned of Friday—is not new. Back in 2017, dozens of artificial intelligence and robotics experts published a letter urging the United Nations to ban the development and use of so-called killer robots. As drone warfare has grown, those calls have continued.
The report also highlights the public statements of the head of one defense contractor that has been selected to produce for the Replicator initiative as a hint that the program is aimed at creating weapons that are capable of autonomous lethal force.
In early October, CEO of Anduril Palmer Luckey said that, "societies have always needed a warrior class that is enthused and excited about enacting violence on others in pursuit of good aims."
"You need people like me who are sick in that way and who don't lose any sleep making tools of violence in order to preserve freedom," he said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Christian Nationalism Marches on With 'Bible-Infused' Texas Curriculum
"What we're seeing here in Texas with these lessons is a larger national push to promote the idea that American identity and Christian identity are woven together, are one in the same," said one professor.
Nov 22, 2024
Parents, teachers, and other critics of Christian nationalism were outraged by a Texas board's Friday vote to approve a "Bible-infused" curriculum for elementary school students—part of a broader right-wing push to force Christianity into public education.
"They chose politics over what's best for students, promoting an evangelical Christian religious perspective and undermining the freedom of families to direct the religious education of their own children," declared the Texas Freedom Network, accusing the State Board of Education (SBOE) of ignoring warnings from religious studies experts, national media attention, and overwhelming negative feedback from the people they're elected to serve."
Like a preliminary vote Tuesday, eight of the SBOE's 15 members voted to approve Bluebonnet Learning, instructional materials proposed by the Texas Education Agency. Three Republicans joined all four Democrats in opposing the curriculum. The deciding vote in favor of it was cast by Leslie Recine, a Republican recently appointed by GOP Gov. Greg Abbott to temporarily fill a vacant seat.
"In a state as diverse as Texas, home to millions of people from countless faiths and beliefs, the Texas Republicans on the State Board of Education voted to incorporate Biblical teachings into the state curriculum—completely undermining religious freedom," said Texas Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa in a statement after the final vote.
"This move has ultimately violated parents' rights to guide their children's faith while presenting teachers with additional needless challenges," Hinojosa argued. "Our public schools should be focused on equipping students with the education and skills they need to succeed beyond grade school whether it's pursuing a higher education or entering the workforce. The teaching of religious doctrine should stay in our places of worship where it belongs."
Although the curriculum isn't required, The Texas Tribunereported, "the state will offer an incentive of $60 per student to districts that adopt the lessons, which could appeal to some as schools struggle financially after several years without a significant raise in state funding."
"Christian nationalists have bought their way into every governing body of the state, including the SBOE. And they will not stop with inserting Biblical content in English textbooks."
Bluebonnet Learning features lessons from Christianity in reading and language arts materials for kindergarten through fifth grade.
"This curriculum is not age-appropriate or subject matter appropriate in the way that it presents these Bible stories," Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, toldThe Associated Press. Children who would read the material, she said, "are simply too young to tell the difference between what is a faith claim and what is a matter of fact."
Zeph Capo, president of the Texas arm of the American Federation of Teachers, urged districts "to resist the dollars dangled before them and refuse to use Bluebonnet Learning materials," arguing that they violate the code of ethics for the state's educators and "the separation of church and state by infusing lessons with Bible-based references more appropriate for Sunday Schools than public schools."
"Moreover, they are assaults on the academic freedom of our classrooms and the sanctity of the teaching profession," he said in a Friday statement. "We have a duty as teachers to make our teaching and learning materials accessible and inclusive of all students in our classrooms. These prescriptive materials cannot meet all learners in all contexts; in fact, they make no effort to do so."
"Perhaps what's most insulting about today's vote is that these materials are not just inappropriate—they're bad at what they proclaim to do. Instructional experts have expressed deep concerns about the age-appropriateness of the materials and whether they will be effective reading instruction," Capo continued. "In short, this is a push coming from idealogues, rather than anyone with expertise in educational best practices."
Noting the current "moment of profound political division," the union leader added that the vote "is the latest evidence that Christian nationalists have bought their way into every governing body of the state, including the SBOE. And they will not stop with inserting Biblical content in English textbooks. We can anticipate what will come next, whether that's the erasure of contributions of marginalized populations in social studies or the minimalization of climate change in science."
The curriculum push coincides with an SBOE effort to restrict library materials. The ACLU of Texas said on social media that "the same politicians censoring what students can read now want to impose state-sponsored religion onto our public schools."
The Tribunereported Thursday that "10 members on the board responsible for determining what Texas' 5.5 million public schoolchildren learn in the classroom voted to call on the Texas Legislature, which convenes in January, to pass a state law granting them authority to determine what books are appropriate for school-age children."
Earlier this week, Mark Chancey, a religious studies professor at Southern Methodist University, toldFox 4 that he supports teaching religion in public schools, but in a fair and unbiased way, and he doesn't agree with the state proposal.
"I think it would be unfortunate to approve these lessons in their current form," he said. "Public schools should reflect the religious diversity of our state. And when teaching about religion, not privilege one religious tradition over others."
"What we're seeing here in Texas with these lessons is a larger national push to promote the idea that American identity and Christian identity are woven together, are one in the same," Chancey pointed out.
For example, in Oklahoma, Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters has set out to put Bibles—specifically, a pricey one peddled by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump—in every classroom in the state. In a recent appearance on CNN, Walters said that "President Trump has a clear mandate. He wants prayer back in school. He wants radical leftism out of the classroom, wants our kids to be patriotic, wants parents back in charge with school choice."
Meanwhile, in Louisiana, state lawmakers passed legislation requiring every public school classroom to display, in large font, a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments. Earlier this month, a judge prohibited enforcement of that requirement, which was on track to take effect in January.
At the federal level, Trump—who is set to return to the White House in January—has advocated for dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. For now, he has named Linda McMahon, a former wrestling executive accused of enabling sexual abuse of children, as his pick for education secretary.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular