SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Protesters demonstrate against Texas' draconian abortion ban outside the state Capitol building on September 1, 2021 in Austin. (Photo: Sergio Flores for The Washington Post via Getty Images)
United Nations experts tasked with monitoring human rights abuses across the globe are condemning Texas' near-total abortion ban as a clear violation of international law, characterizing the state's newly imposed restrictions as "profoundly discriminatory" and dangerous.
Melissa Upreti, a human rights lawyer and the chair of the U.N.'s working group on discrimination against women and girls, told The Guardian on Tuesday that the Texas ban "violates a number of rights guaranteed under international law" and represents "structural sex and gender-based discrimination at its worst."
"This new law will make abortion unsafe and deadly, and create a whole new set of risks for women and girls."
--Melissa Upreti
"This new law will make abortion unsafe and deadly, and create a whole new set of risks for women and girls," said Upreti, who argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to block the Texas ban "has taken the entire country backward" on reproductive rights, potentially imperiling abortion access throughout much of the nation.
Known as S.B. 8, Texas' new law prohibits abortion after around six weeks of pregnancy and deputizes private citizens to enforce the ban, offering a $10,000 reward--plus legal fees--for those who prevail in litigation against abortion providers or anyone who "aids or abets" the procedure. Many Texas abortion clinics will likely be forced to shut down entirely due to the law, which was authored by Republicans.
According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, roughly 85 to 90% of people who obtain abortions in Texas are at least six weeks into pregnancy.
The Supreme Court last week declined to grant an emergency request to stop Texas' ban from taking effect, a decision that legal analysts said effectively overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established abortion as a constitutional right. As Common Dreams reported, several GOP-led states are already signaling plans to replicate Texas' law, which was designed to evade legal challenges.
Reem Alsalem, the U.N.'s independent monitor on violence against women, echoed Upreti's assessment of the Texas ban and the Supreme Court's inaction, telling The Guardian that the nation's conservative justices have "chosen to trample on the protection of women's reproductive rights, thereby exposing them and abortion providers to more violence."
The U.N. Human Rights Committee has previously said (pdf) that while countries "may adopt measures designed to regulate voluntary terminations of pregnancy, such measures must not result in violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or girl, or her other rights under the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]."
"Thus, restrictions on the ability of women or girls to seek abortion must not... jeopardize their lives, subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering... discriminate against them, or arbitrarily interfere with their privacy," the panel said in 2018. "In addition, States parties may not regulate pregnancy or abortion in all other cases in a manner that runs contrary to their duty to ensure that women and girls do not have to undertake unsafe abortions, and they should revise their abortion laws accordingly."
\u201c#USA: Texas law (SB8) endangers women with unprecedented obstacles to safe abortion in nearly all cases. New forms of pressuring\u00a0those who uphold sexual and reproductive health & rights, including service providers, are a serious concern.\u201d— UN Human Rights (@UN Human Rights) 1630526745
The U.N. experts' comments on the Texas abortion ban came after U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement Monday that the Department of Justice is exploring "all options to challenge Texas S.B. 8 in order to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons, including access to an abortion."
In the meantime, Garland said, the Justice Department "will continue to protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services pursuant to our criminal and civil enforcement of the [Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances] Act."
"The FACE Act prohibits the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services," said Garland. "The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack. We have reached out to U.S. Attorneys' Offices and FBI field offices in Texas and across the country to discuss our enforcement authorities."
As the Texas Tribune reported Monday, the Texas law's impacts have already "rippled" across the United States.
"Since the law went into effect, many providers have had to cancel procedures or deny care to patients," the local newspaper observed. "Some clinics have even stopped providing abortion services, according to the Planned Parenthood website... Texans have flooded clinics in neighboring states where abortion laws are less strict. Both nonprofits and private companies have raised funds to support travel for Texans who can't afford to leave the state."
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. |
United Nations experts tasked with monitoring human rights abuses across the globe are condemning Texas' near-total abortion ban as a clear violation of international law, characterizing the state's newly imposed restrictions as "profoundly discriminatory" and dangerous.
Melissa Upreti, a human rights lawyer and the chair of the U.N.'s working group on discrimination against women and girls, told The Guardian on Tuesday that the Texas ban "violates a number of rights guaranteed under international law" and represents "structural sex and gender-based discrimination at its worst."
"This new law will make abortion unsafe and deadly, and create a whole new set of risks for women and girls."
--Melissa Upreti
"This new law will make abortion unsafe and deadly, and create a whole new set of risks for women and girls," said Upreti, who argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to block the Texas ban "has taken the entire country backward" on reproductive rights, potentially imperiling abortion access throughout much of the nation.
Known as S.B. 8, Texas' new law prohibits abortion after around six weeks of pregnancy and deputizes private citizens to enforce the ban, offering a $10,000 reward--plus legal fees--for those who prevail in litigation against abortion providers or anyone who "aids or abets" the procedure. Many Texas abortion clinics will likely be forced to shut down entirely due to the law, which was authored by Republicans.
According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, roughly 85 to 90% of people who obtain abortions in Texas are at least six weeks into pregnancy.
The Supreme Court last week declined to grant an emergency request to stop Texas' ban from taking effect, a decision that legal analysts said effectively overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established abortion as a constitutional right. As Common Dreams reported, several GOP-led states are already signaling plans to replicate Texas' law, which was designed to evade legal challenges.
Reem Alsalem, the U.N.'s independent monitor on violence against women, echoed Upreti's assessment of the Texas ban and the Supreme Court's inaction, telling The Guardian that the nation's conservative justices have "chosen to trample on the protection of women's reproductive rights, thereby exposing them and abortion providers to more violence."
The U.N. Human Rights Committee has previously said (pdf) that while countries "may adopt measures designed to regulate voluntary terminations of pregnancy, such measures must not result in violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or girl, or her other rights under the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]."
"Thus, restrictions on the ability of women or girls to seek abortion must not... jeopardize their lives, subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering... discriminate against them, or arbitrarily interfere with their privacy," the panel said in 2018. "In addition, States parties may not regulate pregnancy or abortion in all other cases in a manner that runs contrary to their duty to ensure that women and girls do not have to undertake unsafe abortions, and they should revise their abortion laws accordingly."
\u201c#USA: Texas law (SB8) endangers women with unprecedented obstacles to safe abortion in nearly all cases. New forms of pressuring\u00a0those who uphold sexual and reproductive health & rights, including service providers, are a serious concern.\u201d— UN Human Rights (@UN Human Rights) 1630526745
The U.N. experts' comments on the Texas abortion ban came after U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement Monday that the Department of Justice is exploring "all options to challenge Texas S.B. 8 in order to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons, including access to an abortion."
In the meantime, Garland said, the Justice Department "will continue to protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services pursuant to our criminal and civil enforcement of the [Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances] Act."
"The FACE Act prohibits the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services," said Garland. "The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack. We have reached out to U.S. Attorneys' Offices and FBI field offices in Texas and across the country to discuss our enforcement authorities."
As the Texas Tribune reported Monday, the Texas law's impacts have already "rippled" across the United States.
"Since the law went into effect, many providers have had to cancel procedures or deny care to patients," the local newspaper observed. "Some clinics have even stopped providing abortion services, according to the Planned Parenthood website... Texans have flooded clinics in neighboring states where abortion laws are less strict. Both nonprofits and private companies have raised funds to support travel for Texans who can't afford to leave the state."
United Nations experts tasked with monitoring human rights abuses across the globe are condemning Texas' near-total abortion ban as a clear violation of international law, characterizing the state's newly imposed restrictions as "profoundly discriminatory" and dangerous.
Melissa Upreti, a human rights lawyer and the chair of the U.N.'s working group on discrimination against women and girls, told The Guardian on Tuesday that the Texas ban "violates a number of rights guaranteed under international law" and represents "structural sex and gender-based discrimination at its worst."
"This new law will make abortion unsafe and deadly, and create a whole new set of risks for women and girls."
--Melissa Upreti
"This new law will make abortion unsafe and deadly, and create a whole new set of risks for women and girls," said Upreti, who argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to block the Texas ban "has taken the entire country backward" on reproductive rights, potentially imperiling abortion access throughout much of the nation.
Known as S.B. 8, Texas' new law prohibits abortion after around six weeks of pregnancy and deputizes private citizens to enforce the ban, offering a $10,000 reward--plus legal fees--for those who prevail in litigation against abortion providers or anyone who "aids or abets" the procedure. Many Texas abortion clinics will likely be forced to shut down entirely due to the law, which was authored by Republicans.
According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, roughly 85 to 90% of people who obtain abortions in Texas are at least six weeks into pregnancy.
The Supreme Court last week declined to grant an emergency request to stop Texas' ban from taking effect, a decision that legal analysts said effectively overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established abortion as a constitutional right. As Common Dreams reported, several GOP-led states are already signaling plans to replicate Texas' law, which was designed to evade legal challenges.
Reem Alsalem, the U.N.'s independent monitor on violence against women, echoed Upreti's assessment of the Texas ban and the Supreme Court's inaction, telling The Guardian that the nation's conservative justices have "chosen to trample on the protection of women's reproductive rights, thereby exposing them and abortion providers to more violence."
The U.N. Human Rights Committee has previously said (pdf) that while countries "may adopt measures designed to regulate voluntary terminations of pregnancy, such measures must not result in violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or girl, or her other rights under the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]."
"Thus, restrictions on the ability of women or girls to seek abortion must not... jeopardize their lives, subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering... discriminate against them, or arbitrarily interfere with their privacy," the panel said in 2018. "In addition, States parties may not regulate pregnancy or abortion in all other cases in a manner that runs contrary to their duty to ensure that women and girls do not have to undertake unsafe abortions, and they should revise their abortion laws accordingly."
\u201c#USA: Texas law (SB8) endangers women with unprecedented obstacles to safe abortion in nearly all cases. New forms of pressuring\u00a0those who uphold sexual and reproductive health & rights, including service providers, are a serious concern.\u201d— UN Human Rights (@UN Human Rights) 1630526745
The U.N. experts' comments on the Texas abortion ban came after U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement Monday that the Department of Justice is exploring "all options to challenge Texas S.B. 8 in order to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons, including access to an abortion."
In the meantime, Garland said, the Justice Department "will continue to protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services pursuant to our criminal and civil enforcement of the [Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances] Act."
"The FACE Act prohibits the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services," said Garland. "The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack. We have reached out to U.S. Attorneys' Offices and FBI field offices in Texas and across the country to discuss our enforcement authorities."
As the Texas Tribune reported Monday, the Texas law's impacts have already "rippled" across the United States.
"Since the law went into effect, many providers have had to cancel procedures or deny care to patients," the local newspaper observed. "Some clinics have even stopped providing abortion services, according to the Planned Parenthood website... Texans have flooded clinics in neighboring states where abortion laws are less strict. Both nonprofits and private companies have raised funds to support travel for Texans who can't afford to leave the state."
Rep. Greg Casar accused Trump and his Republican allies of "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen."
Progressives rallied across the country on Saturday to protest against US President Donald Trump's attempts to get Republican-run state legislatures to redraw their maps to benefit GOP candidates in the 2026 midterm elections.
The anchor rally for the nationwide "Fight the Trump Takeover" protests was held in Austin, Texas, where Republicans in the state are poised to become the first in the nation to redraw their maps at the president's behest.
Progressives in the Lone Star State capital rallied against Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for breaking with historical precedent by carrying out congressional redistricting in the middle of the decade. Independent experts have estimated that the Texas gerrymandering alone could yield the GOP five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.
Speaking before a boisterous crowd of thousands of people, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) charged that the Texas GOP was drawing up "districts set up to elect a Trump minion" in next year's midterms. However, Doggett also said that progressives should still try to compete in these districts, whose residents voted for Trump in the 2024 election but who also have histories of supporting Democratic candidates.
"Next year, [Trump is] not going to be on the ballot to draw the MAGA vote," said Doggett. "Is there anyone here who believes that we ought to abandon any of these redrawn districts and surrender them to Trump?"
Leonard Aguilar, the secretary-treasurer of Texas AFL-CIO, attacked Abbott for doing the president's bidding even as people in central Texas are still struggling in the aftermath of the deadly floods last month that killed at least 136 people.
"It's time for Gov. Abbott to cut the bullshit," he said. "We need help now but he's working at the behest of the president, on behalf of Trump... He's letting Trump take over Texas!"
Aguilar also speculated that Trump is fixated on having Texas redraw its maps because he "knows he's in trouble and he wants to change the rules midstream."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) went through a litany of grievances against Trump and the Republican Party, ranging from the Texas redistricting plan, to hardline immigration policies, to the massive GOP budget package passed last month that is projected to kick 17 million Americans off of Medicaid.
However, Casar also said that he felt hope watching how people in Austin were fighting back against Trump and his policies.
"I'm proud that our city is fighting," he said. "I'm proud of the grit that we have even when the odds are stacked against us. The only answer to oligarchy is organization."
Casar went on to accuse Trump and Republicans or "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen," and then added that "as they try to kick us off our healthcare, as they try to rig this election, we're not going to let them!"
Saturday's protests are being done in partnership with several prominent progressive groups, including Indivisible, MoveOn, Human Rights Campaign, Public Citizen, and the Communication Workers of America. Some Texas-specific groups—including Texas Freedom Network, Texas AFL-CIO, and Texas for All—are also partners in the protest.
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."