September, 23 2021, 05:15pm EDT
![Center for Reproductive Rights](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012628/origin.jpg)
Texas Abortion Ban Returns to Supreme Court
Abortion providers and others ask SCOTUS to expedite next steps in case.
WASHINGTON
Today, a broad coalition of Texas abortion providers--led by Whole Woman's Health--along with abortion funds, doctors and other organizations, once again asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a case challenging Texas' ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy (S.B. 8). In an attempt to expedite the case, plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to hear the defendants' motions to dismiss the case, which were denied by the district court and then appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where they are currently pending. The plaintiffs have asked that the Supreme Court hear the appeal on an expedited basis, without waiting for a further ruling from the Fifth Circuit.
S.B. 8 has now been in effect for 23 days and has eliminated the vast majority of abortion access in the state. Plaintiffs previously asked the Supreme Court to block the law before it took effect on September 1, which the Court refused to do. Clinics in neighboring states have reported huge upticks in patients traveling from Texas since the law took effect. For instance, an Oklahoma clinic reported that two-thirds of the phone calls they receive are now from Texas patients.
Intervention by the Supreme Court is urgently needed because, despite the great harm the ban is causing, the Fifth Circuit has set a schedule that will not allow the appeal to be heard before December. In a separate lawsuit challenging S.B. 8 in state court--brought by Planned Parenthood providers--the Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel indefinitely stayed all proceedings in the trial court today.
In a separate federal lawsuit, the Department of Justice is suing Texas and requesting that the law be blocked. A preliminary injunction hearing in the DOJ's case has been set for October 1 in district court. In a press conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland said of the law: "This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear."
Yesterday, a copycat bill was introduced in the Florida legislature, and lawmakers in many other states have voiced their intent to introduce similar bills. Tomorrow, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on a federal bill that would protect against abortion bans like the one in Texas, as well as the Mississippi ban that the Supreme Court will hear later this year. That bill--the Women's Health Protection Act--is a response to the hundreds of state laws passed in recent years designed to block access to abortion care.
S.B. 8 bans abortion after six weeks into a pregnancy--before many people even know they're pregnant--and creates a bounty-hunting scheme that encourages the general public to bring costly and harassing lawsuits against anyone who they believe has violated the ban. Anyone who successfully sues a health center worker, an abortion provider, or any person who helps someone access an abortion after six weeks in Texas will be rewarded with at least $10,000, to be paid by the person sued. Lawsuits may be filed against a broad range of people, including: a physician who provides an abortion; a person who drives their friend to obtain an abortion; abortion funds providing financial assistance to patients; health center staff; and even a member of the clergy who assists an abortion patient.
Plaintiffs in this case are represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Lawyering Project, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, and Morrison & Foerster LLP. The defendants include every state court trial judge and county clerk in Texas, the Texas Medical Board, the Texas Board of Nursing, the Texas Board of Pharmacy, the attorney general, and the Director of Right to Life East Texas, who has already openly called for people to sue their local abortion providers under S.B. 8.
Timeline of the case:
* May 19: TX Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 8 into law.
* July 13: Plaintiffs filed the case in federal district court.
* August 4-5: The defendants filed four motions to dismiss, asking the district court to end the case.
* August 12: The federal district court judge scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for August 30 to determine whether to block the law before it would take effect on September 1.
* August 25: The federal district court judge denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the case. Defendants immediately filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Circuit, as well as a motion to stop all proceedings in the district court, including canceling the district court's preliminary injunction hearing.
* August 27: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order stopping all proceedings in the district court, including canceling the district court's preliminary injunction hearing. The court also denied the plaintiffs' request to expedite the appeal of defendants' motions to dismiss.
* August 29: The plaintiffs filed for emergency relief with the Fifth Circuit, which was quickly denied.
* August 30: The plaintiffs filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to block the law before it could take effect on September 1 or allow district court proceedings to resume.
* September 1: S.B. 8 took effect after the Supreme Court did not respond to plaintiffs' request before the law's effective date.
* September 2: The U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' emergency request to block the law and allowed Texas's six-week abortion ban to remain in effect. The case returned to the Fifth Circuit for briefing on defendants' appeal of the district court's denial of their motions to dismiss.
* September 10: The Fifth Circuit issued an order explaining its refusal to block the law, and expedited the defendants' appeals to "the next available oral argument panel."
* September 22: the Fifth Circuit issued a briefing schedule that will not allow the case to be heard until at least December.
* September 23 (Today): Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to hear defendants' appeal on an expedited basis. If granted, the case will bypass further proceedings in the Fifth Circuit.
You can read the full petition for writ of certiorari before judgment here.
Quotes from plaintiffs and litigators:
Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman's Health and Whole Woman's Health Alliance:
"For 23 days, we've been forced to deny essential abortion care for the vast majority of patients who come to us. Most of those we've turned away told us they would not be able to make it out of Texas for care. I don't know what happened to these patients after they left our clinics, but I can't stop thinking about them. Forcing our staff to tell patients 'no' day after day is cruel. This chaos must come to an end, and that is why we are going back to the Supreme Court today."
Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:
"We're asking the Supreme Court for this expedited appeal because the Fifth Circuit has done nothing to change the dire circumstances on the ground in Texas. We need this case to move as quickly as possible. Right now, patients are being forced to travel hundreds of miles in the middle of a pandemic to find abortion care. But many people can't afford to do that. We're doing everything we can to block this ban and restore abortion access in Texas."
Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation of America:
"Planned Parenthood call centers have become crisis hotlines and health center staff have become crisis counselors. For three weeks, Texans have been without access to basic health care that is their constitutional right -- forced to travel out of state to get care or carry pregnancies against their will. With this request today, Planned Parenthood, along with our partners, is urging the Supreme Court to move our legal challenge along. Our patients in Texas can't wait. We'll never stop fighting for our patients and will leave no stone unturned in our effort to restore abortion access in Texas."
Julia Kaye, staff attorney, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project:
"For half a century, the Supreme Court has upheld the fundamental right to end a pregnancy. But for the past three weeks, five justices have shrugged their shoulders while Texas politicians do an end-run around the Constitution and impose devastating harm on countless Texans, especially people of color. Already, politicians in other states are lining up to propose copycat bills that insult the Constitution, turn neighbor against neighbor, and force people to suffer the serious risks and pains of pregnancy against their will. It is past time for the Supreme Court to step in and right this grave injustice."
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
'Stunning Abdication': Appeals Court Dismisses Biden Genocide Complicity Case
"We turned to the law to help stop the horror, and the court chose to do nothing," said one plaintiff in the case. "We are beyond disappointed."
Jul 16, 2024
Palestine defenders on Tuesday decried a U.S. federal appellate panel's dismissal of a case brought by Palestinians accusing senior Biden administration officials of failing to prevent and complicity in Israeli genocide in Gaza.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirmed a lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit against President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, which was led by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of several Palestinian groups and individuals.
During a Tuesday interview on Democracy Now!, CCR attorney Katherine Gallagher—who represented plaintiffs in the case—said its dismissal "essentially gives the blank check to carry out any kind of conduct that the executive wants in times of genocide, in times of war."
Gallagher's interview followed a Monday statement in which she referred to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting the president "absolute immunity" for "official acts."
"On the heels of Trump v. United States, this stunning abdication of the court's role to serve as a check on the executive even in the face of its support for genocide should set off alarm bells for all," she said.
The lawsuit—originally filed in November in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland—sought to stop the Biden administration from aiding Israel's bombardment of Gaza. U.S. weapons have played a critical role in Israel's war, which Palestinian and international agencies say has killed, wounded, or left missing more than 137,500 Gazans.
While the court found that "the current treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military may plausibly constitute a genocide in violation of international law," it dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds in late January. The 9th Circuit subsequently granted an expedited appeal in the case, which was heard in June.
"This decision is mind-boggling and, frankly, scary," plaintiff Waeil Elbhassi said in a statement Monday. "It is just unfathomable, while we count our dead, witness the total obliteration of Gaza—aided by our own government."
"As the death toll keeps rising and we see nonstop images of carnage during this livestreamed genocide, the court washes its hands of our case," Elbhassi added. "We turned to the law to help stop the horror, and the court chose to do nothing. We are beyond disappointed. We have no choice but to continue to fight for our people. Our very existence is at stake."
Israel's conduct in Gaza—including alleged forced starvation that has fueled deadly famine in parts of the besieged strip—is under investigation by the International Court of Justice in a genocide case brought by South Africa.
Additionally, International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan has applied for warrants to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders for crimes including extermination allegedly committed on and after October 7.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Greg Casar Says There's an Easy Way to Show Which Party Is More Pro-Worker
"Let's see which politicians are for unions and which ones are all talk," said the Texas Democrat.
Jul 16, 2024
As former U.S. President Donald Trump's new running mate and a union leader's speech spark discussions about the Republican Party and organized labor, one Democratic congressman on Tuesday suggested a test to see who is actually pro-worker.
Rep. Greg Casar, a Texas Democrat with a history of
advocating for workers, called for holding a vote on the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act when his colleagues in Congress return to Capitol Hill next week.
"If Republicans wanna talk like they're pro-worker, then let's have a vote on the PRO Act next week," Casar said on social media. "Let's see which politicians are for unions and which ones are all talk. Dems are ready to vote, how about you guys?"
Introduced by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the PRO Act "expands various labor protections related to employees' rights to organize and collectively bargain in the workplace." The vast majority of its co-sponsors are Democrats.
"Dems are ready to vote, how about you guys?"
Casar specifically called out House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who on Tuesday wrote for Compact Magazine about International Brotherhood of Teamsters general president Sean O'Brien's Monday night speech at the Republican National Convention (RNC), acknowledging that it "came as something of a shock."
Hawley called the speech "a watershed moment" and said that "Republicans have a chance to turn the corner on labor." He also took the opportunity to highlight some of his own positions, such as more sick days for rail workers. The senator left out that he has backed "right-to-work" laws that ban union security clauses in collective bargaining agreements and opposed the PRO Act.
O'Brien—who responded by saying that Hawley "is 100% on point"—had, as The Washington Post's Lauren Kaori Gurley put it, "showered praise" on the senator during his speech. The Teamsters leader also stressed the need for pro-worker reforms.
"Labor law must be reformed," O'Brien said. "Americans vote for a union but can never get a union contract. Companies fire workers who try to join unions and hide behind toothless laws that are meant to protect working people but are manipulated to benefit corporations. This is economic terrorism at its best. An individual cannot withstand such an assault. A fired worker cannot afford corporate delays and these greedy employers know it. There are no consequences for the company, only the worker."
He declared that "we need corporate welfare reform. Under our current system, massive companies like Amazon, Uber, Lyft, and Walmart take zero responsibilities for the workers they employ. These companies offer no real health insurance, no retirement benefits, no paid leave, relying on underfunded public assistance. And who foots the bill? The individual taxpayer. The biggest recipients of welfare in this country are corporations, and this is real corruption. We must put workers first."
O'Brien was invited to speak at the RNC by Trump, who on Monday secured enough delegates to become the Republican nominee and announced U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate—creating a ticket that Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, called "a corporate CEO's dream and a worker's nightmare."
Teamsters spokesperson Kara Deniz told the Post that the union leader requested to speak at the Democratic National Convention next month but has not yet received an invitation.
Unlike the Teamsters, several major labor groups endorsed Biden for reelection over a year ago. The Democrat describes himself as "the most pro-union President leading the most pro-union administration in American history"—and he has mostly avoided angering organized labor, other than working with Congress to block a national rail strike in December 2022.
Biden became the first sitting president in history to walk a picket line when he rallied with United Auto Workers members in September. The UAW endorsed him in January, when the group's president, Shawn Fain, sharply criticized Trump and warned that "rarely as a union do you get so clear of a choice between two candidates."
O'Brien struck a much different tone on Monday, praising the ex-president and "characterizing both parties as ambivalent about unions with room to improve," as Post reporter Jeff Stein pointed out on social media. In addition to Sanders, Stein highlighted, "there are 48 Senate sponsors of the PRO Act. They all caucus with the Democratic Party. Zero are Republicans."
Only Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)—who ditched the Democratic Party shortly after the 2022 election—have joined with the chamber's Republicans to oppose the PRO Act. In the GOP-controlled House, the bill is backed by every Democrat but just three Republicans: Reps. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Ore.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), and Christopher Smith (N.J.).
"On June 21, 2023, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions chaired by Sen. Bernie Sanders passed the PRO Act 11-10," Warren Gunnels, the panel's majority staff director, noted Tuesday. "Every Democrat on the committee voted yes. Every Republican on the committee voted no."
Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said, "To the Republicans at the RNC who want to appear to support American labor, here's an idea: Come join us to pass the PRO Act."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sightings of Uncontacted Tribe Spur Calls to End Logging in Peruvian Amazon
"This is a humanitarian disaster in the making—it's absolutely vital that the loggers are thrown out, and the Mashco-Piro's territory is properly protected at last," said the director of Survival International.
Jul 16, 2024
A leading rights group on Tuesday called for loggers to be "thrown out" of a remote part of the Peruvian Amazon following recent sightings of people belonging to what is believed to be the world's largest uncontacted Indigenous tribe.
London-based Survival International published video and photos of dozens of Mashco-Piro people taken near the village of Monte Salvado in southeastern Peru near the Brazilian border. The group said that in recent days, more than 50 Mashco-Piro have appeared near the village, which is inhabited by the related Yine people. A group of 17 Mashco-Piro were also recently sighted near the neighboring village of Puerto Nuevo.
Several logging companies are operating within just a few miles of where the Mascho-Piro were spotted. One company operating inside Mashco-Piro territory, Canalaes Tahuamanu, has laid more than 120 miles of road there to facilitate timber extraction. The company is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as a sustainable and ethical operator, even though it is known to be felling trees inside Mashco-Piro territory. Survival International is calling on the FSC to withdraw its certification.
"This is a humanitarian disaster in the making—it's absolutely vital that the loggers are thrown out, and the Mashco-Piro's territory is properly protected at last," Survival International director Caroline Pearce said in a statement Tuesday. "The FSC must cancel its certification of Canales Tahuamanu immediately—failure to do so will make a mockery of the entire certification system."
Alfredo Vargas Pio, president of the local Indigenous group Native Federation of the RÃo Madre and its Tributaries, called the new photographs "irrefutable evidence that many Mashco-Piro live in this area, which the government has not only failed to protect, but sold off to logging companies."
"The logging workers could bring in new diseases which would wipe out the Mashco-Piro, and there's also a risk of violence on either side," he added, "so it's very important that the territorial rights of the Mashco-Piro are recognized and protected in law."
In 2014, Peruvian authorities evacuated residents from Monte Salvado by boat after around 200 Mashco-Piro armed with bows and arrows raided the village, killing livestock and pets and taking food and tools. In 2022, Mashco-Piro members killed 21-year-old Peruvian logger Gean del Aguila and wounded another man with arrows as they fished on the Tahuamanu River.
In the 1890s most Mashco-Piro were either enslaved or exterminated by private mercenaries hired by self-described Peruvian "Rubber King" Carlos Fitzcarrald—immortalized in the 1982 Werner Herzog film Fitzcarraldo. Surviving Mashco-Piro fled deeper into the Amazon and avoided contact with most outsiders. They fiercely defended their territory from intruders. However, in recent decades, loggers have penetrated and exploited Mascho-Piro lands.
There are believed to be more than 750 Mascho-Piro living in Peru. They sometimes cross the border into Brazil.
"They flee from loggers on the Peruvian side. At this time of the year they appear on the beaches to take tracajá eggs," Rosa Padilha of the Indigenous Missionary Council in the Brazilian state of Acre toldThe Guardian, referring to a species of Amazon turtle.
"That's when we find their footprints on the sand. They leave behind a lot of turtle shells," Padilha added. "They are a people with no peace, restless, because they are always on the run."
Around 15 other uncontacted Indigenous tribes with as many as 15,000 members are believed to remain in the Peruvian Amazon. It is illegal to make contact with such peoples for fear they would contract common human illnesses that could be fatal to unexposed populations without immunity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular