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
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers use a facial recognition device at Miami International Airport to screen travelers entering the United States on Feb. 27, 2018 in Miami. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
US Agencies Sued Over Secretive Use of Facial Recognition and Other 'Dystopian Surveillance Technology'
"Face and other biometric surveillance technologies," one ACLU expert warns, "can enable undetectable, persistent, and suspicionless surveillance on an unprecedented scale."
Nov 01, 2019
Warning of grave threats to Americans' privacy and demanding transparency in the name of public good, the national ACLU and its Massachusetts chapter filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Administration in an effort to unveil the agencies' secretive use of facial recognition technology nationwide.
"There can be no accountability if there is no transparency."
--Kade Crockford, ACLU of Massachusetts
"There can be no accountability if there is no transparency," declared Kade Crockford, director of the ACLU of Massachusetts' Technology for Liberty Program. "This dystopian surveillance technology threatens to fundamentally alter our free society into one where we're treated as suspects to be tracked and monitored by the government 24/7."
The lawsuit (pdf), filed under the Freedom of Information Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, aims "to understand and inform the public about, among other things, how face recognition and other biometric identification technologies are currently being used by the government, and what, if any, safeguards are currently in place to prevent their abuse and protect core constitutional rights."
\u201cBREAKING: We're suing the FBI for keeping the public in the dark about its use of face recognition.\n\nWe won't let this dystopian surveillance technology turn our free society into one where we're treated as suspects to be tracked and monitored by the government 24/7.\u201d— ACLU (@ACLU) 1572535168
Pointing out in blog post on the ACLU's website that "face and other biometric surveillance technologies can enable undetectable, persistent, and suspicionless surveillance on an unprecedented scale," Crockford highlighted concerns about the FBI specifically, considering the agency's track record.
"When placed in the hands of the FBI--an unaccountable, deregulated, secretive intelligence agency with an unresolved history of anti-Black racism--there is even more reason for alarm," Crockford wrote. "And when that agency stonewalls our requests for information about how its agents are tracking and monitoring our faces, we should all be concerned."
In January, the ACLU filed a public records request seeking information about the FBI and DEA's "use of facial recognition and other biometric system." However, despite both agencies acknowledging the following month that they had received the request, neither has provided the legal group with any relevant documents--refusals which eventually led to Thursday's lawsuit.
Some information about the FBI's use of such technology is already publicly known, as The Washington Post reported Thursday:
The FBI allows federal and local investigators to submit a "probe" photo of someone's face and search against a database of more than 30 million criminal mug shots using its Next Generation Identification system, which the bureau calls "the world's largest and most efficient electronic repository of biometric and criminal history information."
More than 640 million facial photos, including from state driver's license databases, are also available for search by an internal FBI unit known as Facial Analysis, Comparison and Evaluation, or FACE, the Government Accountability Office reported in June. That team has logged more than 390,000 facial recognition searches from local, state and federal investigators since 2011.
Crockford, in the blog post, also detailed some of the FBI's recent uses of the technology--and why it's concerning.
"Since at least 2010, the FBI has monitored civil society groups, including racial justice movements, Occupy Wall Street, environmentalists, Palestinian solidarity activists, Abolish ICE protesters, and Cuba and Iran normalization proponents," Crockford noted. "In recent years, the FBI has wasted considerable resources to spy on Black activists, who the agency labeled 'Black Identity Extremists' to justify even more surveillance of the Black Lives Matter movement and other fights for racial justice. The agency has also investigated climate justice activists including 350.org and the Standing Rock water protectors under the banner of protecting national security."
"Because of the FBI's secrecy, little is known about how the agency is supercharging its surveillance activities with face recognition technology," Crockford continued. "This lack of transparency would be frightening enough if the technology worked. But it doesn't: Numerous studies have shown face surveillance technology is prone to significant racial and gender bias."
Crockford concluded that "of course, even in the highly unlikely event that face recognition technology were to become 100 percent accurate, the technology's threat to our privacy rights and civil liberties remains extraordinary."
Given that threat and the absence of federal rules on use of the technology by governments or private entities, muncipalties and states are pursuing local restrictions and bans with the help of privacy advocacy groups including the ACLU.
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
aclubig brothercivil libertiescivil rightsdeafbimassachusettsprivacytechnologyus department of justice
Warning of grave threats to Americans' privacy and demanding transparency in the name of public good, the national ACLU and its Massachusetts chapter filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Administration in an effort to unveil the agencies' secretive use of facial recognition technology nationwide.
"There can be no accountability if there is no transparency."
--Kade Crockford, ACLU of Massachusetts
"There can be no accountability if there is no transparency," declared Kade Crockford, director of the ACLU of Massachusetts' Technology for Liberty Program. "This dystopian surveillance technology threatens to fundamentally alter our free society into one where we're treated as suspects to be tracked and monitored by the government 24/7."
The lawsuit (pdf), filed under the Freedom of Information Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, aims "to understand and inform the public about, among other things, how face recognition and other biometric identification technologies are currently being used by the government, and what, if any, safeguards are currently in place to prevent their abuse and protect core constitutional rights."
\u201cBREAKING: We're suing the FBI for keeping the public in the dark about its use of face recognition.\n\nWe won't let this dystopian surveillance technology turn our free society into one where we're treated as suspects to be tracked and monitored by the government 24/7.\u201d— ACLU (@ACLU) 1572535168
Pointing out in blog post on the ACLU's website that "face and other biometric surveillance technologies can enable undetectable, persistent, and suspicionless surveillance on an unprecedented scale," Crockford highlighted concerns about the FBI specifically, considering the agency's track record.
"When placed in the hands of the FBI--an unaccountable, deregulated, secretive intelligence agency with an unresolved history of anti-Black racism--there is even more reason for alarm," Crockford wrote. "And when that agency stonewalls our requests for information about how its agents are tracking and monitoring our faces, we should all be concerned."
In January, the ACLU filed a public records request seeking information about the FBI and DEA's "use of facial recognition and other biometric system." However, despite both agencies acknowledging the following month that they had received the request, neither has provided the legal group with any relevant documents--refusals which eventually led to Thursday's lawsuit.
Some information about the FBI's use of such technology is already publicly known, as The Washington Post reported Thursday:
The FBI allows federal and local investigators to submit a "probe" photo of someone's face and search against a database of more than 30 million criminal mug shots using its Next Generation Identification system, which the bureau calls "the world's largest and most efficient electronic repository of biometric and criminal history information."
More than 640 million facial photos, including from state driver's license databases, are also available for search by an internal FBI unit known as Facial Analysis, Comparison and Evaluation, or FACE, the Government Accountability Office reported in June. That team has logged more than 390,000 facial recognition searches from local, state and federal investigators since 2011.
Crockford, in the blog post, also detailed some of the FBI's recent uses of the technology--and why it's concerning.
"Since at least 2010, the FBI has monitored civil society groups, including racial justice movements, Occupy Wall Street, environmentalists, Palestinian solidarity activists, Abolish ICE protesters, and Cuba and Iran normalization proponents," Crockford noted. "In recent years, the FBI has wasted considerable resources to spy on Black activists, who the agency labeled 'Black Identity Extremists' to justify even more surveillance of the Black Lives Matter movement and other fights for racial justice. The agency has also investigated climate justice activists including 350.org and the Standing Rock water protectors under the banner of protecting national security."
"Because of the FBI's secrecy, little is known about how the agency is supercharging its surveillance activities with face recognition technology," Crockford continued. "This lack of transparency would be frightening enough if the technology worked. But it doesn't: Numerous studies have shown face surveillance technology is prone to significant racial and gender bias."
Crockford concluded that "of course, even in the highly unlikely event that face recognition technology were to become 100 percent accurate, the technology's threat to our privacy rights and civil liberties remains extraordinary."
Given that threat and the absence of federal rules on use of the technology by governments or private entities, muncipalties and states are pursuing local restrictions and bans with the help of privacy advocacy groups including the ACLU.
Warning of grave threats to Americans' privacy and demanding transparency in the name of public good, the national ACLU and its Massachusetts chapter filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Administration in an effort to unveil the agencies' secretive use of facial recognition technology nationwide.
"There can be no accountability if there is no transparency."
--Kade Crockford, ACLU of Massachusetts
"There can be no accountability if there is no transparency," declared Kade Crockford, director of the ACLU of Massachusetts' Technology for Liberty Program. "This dystopian surveillance technology threatens to fundamentally alter our free society into one where we're treated as suspects to be tracked and monitored by the government 24/7."
The lawsuit (pdf), filed under the Freedom of Information Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, aims "to understand and inform the public about, among other things, how face recognition and other biometric identification technologies are currently being used by the government, and what, if any, safeguards are currently in place to prevent their abuse and protect core constitutional rights."
\u201cBREAKING: We're suing the FBI for keeping the public in the dark about its use of face recognition.\n\nWe won't let this dystopian surveillance technology turn our free society into one where we're treated as suspects to be tracked and monitored by the government 24/7.\u201d— ACLU (@ACLU) 1572535168
Pointing out in blog post on the ACLU's website that "face and other biometric surveillance technologies can enable undetectable, persistent, and suspicionless surveillance on an unprecedented scale," Crockford highlighted concerns about the FBI specifically, considering the agency's track record.
"When placed in the hands of the FBI--an unaccountable, deregulated, secretive intelligence agency with an unresolved history of anti-Black racism--there is even more reason for alarm," Crockford wrote. "And when that agency stonewalls our requests for information about how its agents are tracking and monitoring our faces, we should all be concerned."
In January, the ACLU filed a public records request seeking information about the FBI and DEA's "use of facial recognition and other biometric system." However, despite both agencies acknowledging the following month that they had received the request, neither has provided the legal group with any relevant documents--refusals which eventually led to Thursday's lawsuit.
Some information about the FBI's use of such technology is already publicly known, as The Washington Post reported Thursday:
The FBI allows federal and local investigators to submit a "probe" photo of someone's face and search against a database of more than 30 million criminal mug shots using its Next Generation Identification system, which the bureau calls "the world's largest and most efficient electronic repository of biometric and criminal history information."
More than 640 million facial photos, including from state driver's license databases, are also available for search by an internal FBI unit known as Facial Analysis, Comparison and Evaluation, or FACE, the Government Accountability Office reported in June. That team has logged more than 390,000 facial recognition searches from local, state and federal investigators since 2011.
Crockford, in the blog post, also detailed some of the FBI's recent uses of the technology--and why it's concerning.
"Since at least 2010, the FBI has monitored civil society groups, including racial justice movements, Occupy Wall Street, environmentalists, Palestinian solidarity activists, Abolish ICE protesters, and Cuba and Iran normalization proponents," Crockford noted. "In recent years, the FBI has wasted considerable resources to spy on Black activists, who the agency labeled 'Black Identity Extremists' to justify even more surveillance of the Black Lives Matter movement and other fights for racial justice. The agency has also investigated climate justice activists including 350.org and the Standing Rock water protectors under the banner of protecting national security."
"Because of the FBI's secrecy, little is known about how the agency is supercharging its surveillance activities with face recognition technology," Crockford continued. "This lack of transparency would be frightening enough if the technology worked. But it doesn't: Numerous studies have shown face surveillance technology is prone to significant racial and gender bias."
Crockford concluded that "of course, even in the highly unlikely event that face recognition technology were to become 100 percent accurate, the technology's threat to our privacy rights and civil liberties remains extraordinary."
Given that threat and the absence of federal rules on use of the technology by governments or private entities, muncipalties and states are pursuing local restrictions and bans with the help of privacy advocacy groups including the ACLU.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
US State Dept Releases 'Shameful' Human Rights Report Revamped to Shield Allies, Including Israel
"This sends a chilling message that the U.S. is willing to overlook some abuses, signaling that people experiencing human rights violations may be left to fend for themselves," said one Amnesty campaigner.
Aug 12, 2025
After leaked drafts exposed the Trump administration's plans to downplay human rights abuses in some allied countries, including Israel, the U.S. Department of State released the final edition of an annual report on Tuesday, sparking fresh condemnation.
"Breaking with precedent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not provide a written introduction to the report nor did he make remarks about it," CNN reported. Still, Amanda Klasing, Amnesty International USA's national director of government relations and advocacy, called him out by name in a Tuesday statement.
"With the release of the U.S. State Department's human rights report, it is clear that the Trump administration has engaged in a very selective documentation of human rights abuses in certain countries," Klasing said. "In addition to eliminating entire sections for certain countries—for example discrimination against LGBTQ+ people—there are also arbitrary omissions within existing sections of the report based on the country."
Klasing explained that "we have criticized past reports when warranted, but have never seen reports quite like this. Never before have the reports gone this far in prioritizing an administration's political agenda over a consistent and truthful accounting of human rights violations around the world—softening criticism in some countries while ignoring violations in others. The State Department has said in relation to the reports less is more. However, for the victims and human rights defenders who rely on these reports to shine light on abuses and violations, less is just less."
"Secretary Rubio knows full well from his time in the Senate how vital these reports are in informing policy decisions and shaping diplomatic conversations, yet he has made the dangerous and short-sighted decision to put out a truncated version that doesn't tell the whole story of human rights violations," she continued. "This sends a chilling message that the U.S. is willing to overlook some abuses, signaling that people experiencing human rights violations may be left to fend for themselves."
"Failing to adequately report on human rights violations further damages the credibility of the U.S. on human rights issues," she added. "It's shameful that the Trump administration and Secretary Rubio are putting politics above human lives."
The overarching report—which includes over 100 individual country reports—covers 2024, the last full calendar year of the Biden administration. The appendix says that in March, the report was "streamlined for better utility and accessibility in the field and by partners, and to be more responsive to the underlying legislative mandate and aligned to the administration's executive orders."
As CNN detailed:
The latest report was stripped of many of the specific sections included in past reports, including reporting on alleged abuses based on sexual orientation, violence toward women, corruption in government, systemic racial or ethnic violence, or denial of a fair public trial. Some country reports, including for Afghanistan, do address human rights abuses against women.
"We were asked to edit down the human rights reports to the bare minimum of what was statutorily required," said Michael Honigstein, the former director of African Affairs at the State Department's Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy, and Labor. He and his office helped compile the initial reports.
Over the past week, since the draft country reports leaked to the press, the Trump administration has come under fire for its portrayals of El Salvador, Israel, and Russia.
The report on Israel—and the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank—is just nine pages. The brevity even drew the attention of Israeli media. The Times of Israel highlighted that it "is much shorter than last year's edition compiled under the Biden administration and contained no mention of the severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza."
Since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, Israeli forces have slaughtered over 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to local officials—though experts warn the true toll is likely far higher. As Israel has restricted humanitarian aid in recent months, over 200 people have starved to death, including 103 children.
The U.S. report on Israel does not mention the genocide case that Israel faces at the International Court of Justice over the assault on Gaza, or the International Criminal Court arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The section on war crimes and genocide only says that "terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah continue to engage in the
indiscriminate targeting of Israeli civilians in violation of the law of armed conflict."
As the world mourns the killing of six more Palestinian media professionals in Gaza this week—which prompted calls for the United Nations Security Council to convene an emergency meeting—the report's section on press freedom is also short and makes no mention of the hundreds of journalists killed in Israel's annihilation of the strip:
The law generally provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and the government generally respected this right for most Israelis. NGOs and journalists reported authorities restricted press coverage and limited certain forms of expression, especially in the context of criticism against the war or sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza.
Noting that "the human rights reports have been among the U.S. government's most-read documents," DAWN senior adviser and 32-year State Department official Charles Blaha said the "significant omissions" in this year's report on Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank render it "functionally useless for Congress and the public as nothing more than a pro-Israel document."
Like Klasing at Amnesty, Sarah Leah Whitson, DAWN's executive director, specifically called out the U.S. secretary of state.
"Secretary Rubio has revamped the State Department reports for one principal purpose: to whitewash Israeli crimes, including its horrific genocide and starvation in Gaza. The report shockingly includes not a word about the overwhelming evidence of genocide, mass starvation, and the deliberate bombardment of civilians in Gaza," she said. "Rubio has defied the letter and intent of U.S. laws requiring the State Department to report truthfully and comprehensively about every country's human rights abuses, instead offering up anodyne cover for his murderous friends in Tel Aviv."
The Tuesday release came after a coalition of LGBTQ+ and human rights organizations on Monday filed a lawsuit against the U.S. State Department over its refusal to release the congressionally mandated report.
This article has been updated with comment from DAWN.
Watchdog Unveils Standards for Countermeasures to 'Authoritarian' GOP Gerrymandering
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," said the head of Common Cause.
Aug 12, 2025
As Republicans try to rig congressional maps in several states and Democrats threaten retaliatory measures, a pro-democracy watchdog on Tuesday unveiled new fairness standards underscoring that "independent redistricting commissions remain the gold standard for ending partisan gerrymandering."
Common Cause will hold an online media briefing Wednesday at noon Eastern time "to walk reporters though the six pieces of criteria the organization will use to evaluate any proposed maps."
The Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group said that "it will closely evaluate, but not automatically condemn, countermeasures" to Republican gerrymandering efforts—especially mid-decade redistricting not based on decennial censuses.
Amid the gerrymandering wars, we just launched 6 fairness criteria to hold all actors to the same principled standard: people first—not parties. Read our criteria here: www.commoncause.org/resources/po...
[image or embed]
— Common Cause (@commoncause.org) August 12, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Common Cause's six fairness criteria for mid-decade redistricting are:
- Proportionality: Any mid-decade redistricting should be a targeted response proportional to the threat posed by mid-decade gerrymanders in other states.
- Public participation: Any redistricting must include meaningful public participation, whether through ballot initiatives or open public processes.
- Racial equity: Redistricting must not further racial discrimination or dilute the political voice of Black, Latino, Indigenous, Asian American, and Pacific Islander, or other communities of color.
- Federal reform: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, including provisions banning mid-decade redistricting and partisan gerrymandering.
- Endorsement of independent redistricting: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse citizen-led independent redistricting commissions as the long-term solution.
- Time-limited: Any new redistricting maps must expire following the 2030 Census, which counts all people in our country, and be replaced through the regular decennial redistricting process.
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said in a statement. "But neither will we call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarian tactics that undermine fair representation."
"We have established a fairness criteria that we will use to evaluate all countermeasures so we can respond to the most urgent threats to fair representation while holding all actors to the same principled standard: people—not parties—first," she added.
Common Cause's fairness criteria come amid the ongoing standoff between Republicans trying to gerrymander Texas' congressional map and Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in a bid to stymie a vote on the measure. Texas state senators on Tuesday approved the proposed map despite a walkout by most of their Democratic colleagues.
Leaders of several Democrat-controlled states, most notably California, have threatened retaliatory redistricting.
"This moment is about more than responding to a single threat—it's about building the movement for lasting reform," Kase Solomón asserted. "This is not an isolated political tactic; it is part of a broader march toward authoritarianism, dismantling people-powered democracy, and stripping away the people's ability to have a political voice and say in how they are governed."
'These Officials Abused Their Power': Texas Woman Unlawfully Arrested for Murder Over Abortion Seeks Justice
"Texas law is clear: A pregnant person cannot be arrested and prosecuted for getting an abortion. No one is above the law, including officials entrusted with enforcing it," said an ACLU attorney.
Aug 12, 2025
When officials in Starr County, Texas arrested Lizelle Gonzalez in 2022 and charged her with murder for having a medication abortion—despite state law clearly prohibiting the prosecution of women for abortion care—she spent three days in jail, away from her children, and the highly publicized arrest was "deeply traumatizing."
Now, said her lawyers at the ACLU in court filings on Tuesday, officials in the county sheriff's and district attorney's offices must be held accountable for knowingly subjecting Gonzalez to wrongful prosecution.
Starr County District Attorney Gocha Ramirez ultimately dismissed the charge against Gonzalez, said the ACLU, but the Texas bar's investigation into Ramirez—which found multiple instances of misconduct related to Gonzalez's homicide charge—resulted in only minor punishment. Ramirez had to pay a small fine of $1,250 and was given one year of probated suspension.
"Without real accountability, Starr County's district attorney—and any other law enforcement actor—will not be deterred from abusing their power to unlawfully target people because of their personal beliefs, rather than the law," said the ACLU.
The state bar found that Ramirez allowed Gonzalez's indictment to go forward despite the fact that her homicide charge was "known not to be supported by probable cause."
Ramirez had denied that he was briefed on the facts of the case before it was prosecuted by his office, but the state bar "determined he was consulted by a prosecutor in his office beforehand and permitted it to go forward."
"Without real accountability, Starr County's district attorney—and any other law enforcement actor—will not be deterred from abusing their power to unlawfully target people because of their personal beliefs, rather than the law."
Sarah Corning, an attorney at the ACLU of Texas, said the prosecutors and law enforcement officers "ignored Texas law when they wrongfully arrested Lizelle Gonzalez for ending her pregnancy."
"They shattered her life in South Texas, violated her rights, and abused the power they swore to uphold," said Corning. "Texas law is clear: A pregnant person cannot be arrested and prosecuted for getting an abortion. No one is above the law, including officials entrusted with enforcing it."
The district attorney's office sought to have the ACLU's case dismissed in July 2024, raising claims of legal immunity.
A court denied Ramirez's motion, and the ACLU's discovery process that followed revealed "a coordinated effort between the Starr County sheriff's office and district attorney's office to violate Ms. Gonzalez's rights."
The officials' "wanton disregard for the rule of law and erroneous belief of their own invincibility is a frightening deviation from the offices' purposes: to seek justice," said Cecilia Garza, a partner at the law firm Garza Martinez, who is joining the ACLU in representing Gonzalez. "I am proud to represent Ms. Gonzalez in her fight for justice and redemption, and our team will not allow these abuses to continue in Starr County or any other county in the state of Texas."
Gonzalez's fight for justice comes as a wrongful death case in Texas—filed by an "anti-abortion legal terrorist" on behalf of a man whose girlfriend use medication from another state to end her pregnancy—moves forward, potentially jeopardizing access to abortion pills across the country.
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.