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.
Abortion rights supporters demonstrate on April 15, 2023 in Los Angeles, California.
"Her health is on the line. She's been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn't wait any longer," said Nancy Northup at the Center for Reproductive Rights.
After the Texas Supreme Court blocked a judge's order enabling Kate Cox to terminate a pregnancy due to the fetus having a fatal condition, the 31-year-old Dallas resident has fled the state for abortion care, her lawyers announced Monday.
"This past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), which filed the case for Cox last week. "Her health is on the line. She's been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn't wait any longer. This is why judges and politicians should not be making healthcare decisions for pregnant people—they are not doctors."
"This is the result of the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade: Women are forced to beg for urgent healthcare in court," Northup added. "Kate's case has shown the world that abortion bans are dangerous for pregnant people, and exceptions don't work. She desperately wanted to be able to get care where she lives and recover at home surrounded by family. While Kate had the ability to leave the state, most people do not, and a situation like this could be a death sentence."
CRR is not disclosing where Cox is going for care. The mother of two is about 20 weeks pregnant with a fetus that has trisomy 18, a chromosomal abnormality that could result in a miscarriage, stillbirth, or the death of her child in the hours or days after birth. Her doctors warned that continuing the pregnancy would threaten her future fertility.
The Texas Supreme Court's Friday decision blocking the judge's order was only temporary. The Monday announcement from CRR came as Cox was still awaiting a permanent decision, which could have been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cox's case has garnered attention across Texas and the United States. Former Democratic Texas Sen. Wendy Davis took aim at the state's Republican attorney general, governor, and lieutenant governor, saying Monday that "my heart breaks for Kate Cox and her family as they endure the emotional and physical stress of this journey—one created by the cruel and inhumane policies of politicians like Ken Paxton, Greg Abbott, and Dan Patrick."
Along with thanking CRR for its "incredible work on the judicial front" fighting "for people like Kate Cox," Davis—who made national headlines a decade ago for her hourslong filibuster of anti-choice legislation—declared that "to turn things around, we must confront these injustices at both the ballot box and in the courtroom."
Congresswoman Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), the House minority whip, said on social media that "Kate Cox is bravely sharing her pain with the world while Republican extremist Ken Paxton threatens to throw her doctors in jail if they provide her abortion care. This is the GOP's post-Roe America. It's cruel. It's inhumane. And we have to stop them."
As the Houston Chronicle reported on Cox's decision to leave the state:
The development likely marks the end of the litigation, as the abortion in question is now a moot issue, said Joanna Grossman, a law professor at Southern Methodist University. Yet, the case could inspire other women with dangerous pregnancies to file similar suits, she said.
Cox is believed to be the first in the country to sue for permission to get an abortion since the fall of Roe v. Wade and Texas' implementation of a near-total abortion ban.
"It kind of gives a blueprint for other plaintiffs who are in similar situations," Grossman said. "I expect we'll see more of these cases, both in Texas and in other banned states.
The newspaper noted that "the Texas Supreme Court is still weighing a larger case brought by 22 women who, like Cox, faced dangerous pregnancy complications and were denied abortions because the emergency exception to the state's ban was so vague their doctors feared legal consequences."
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization last year, over a dozen states have banned abortion with very limited exceptions—forcing nearly 1 in 5 patients to travel out of state to obtain abortion care in the first half of this year, according to research released Friday by the Guttmacher Institute.
"We knew that more people have been traveling across state lines for abortion since the end of Roe, but these findings are stunning nonetheless, and powerfully illustrate just how disruptive the overturning of Roe has been for tens of thousands of abortion patients," said institute data scientist and project lead Isaac Maddow-Zimet.
Kelly Baden, Guttmacher's vice president for public policy, stressed that "policies that protect and expand access, such as those that permit any qualified healthcare provider—not just physicians—to offer abortion care or shield laws that protect providers from criminal investigation from hostile states, have been critical in helping states meet patients' needs."
"We must also acknowledge the role that abortion funds and other support networks have played in helping people overcome the numerous financial and logistical barriers that traveling for abortion care entails," Baden added. "However, nothing can substitute for sound public policy that recognizes abortion as a critical, necessary component of basic healthcare that everyone deserves, regardless of where they live."
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. |
After the Texas Supreme Court blocked a judge's order enabling Kate Cox to terminate a pregnancy due to the fetus having a fatal condition, the 31-year-old Dallas resident has fled the state for abortion care, her lawyers announced Monday.
"This past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), which filed the case for Cox last week. "Her health is on the line. She's been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn't wait any longer. This is why judges and politicians should not be making healthcare decisions for pregnant people—they are not doctors."
"This is the result of the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade: Women are forced to beg for urgent healthcare in court," Northup added. "Kate's case has shown the world that abortion bans are dangerous for pregnant people, and exceptions don't work. She desperately wanted to be able to get care where she lives and recover at home surrounded by family. While Kate had the ability to leave the state, most people do not, and a situation like this could be a death sentence."
CRR is not disclosing where Cox is going for care. The mother of two is about 20 weeks pregnant with a fetus that has trisomy 18, a chromosomal abnormality that could result in a miscarriage, stillbirth, or the death of her child in the hours or days after birth. Her doctors warned that continuing the pregnancy would threaten her future fertility.
The Texas Supreme Court's Friday decision blocking the judge's order was only temporary. The Monday announcement from CRR came as Cox was still awaiting a permanent decision, which could have been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cox's case has garnered attention across Texas and the United States. Former Democratic Texas Sen. Wendy Davis took aim at the state's Republican attorney general, governor, and lieutenant governor, saying Monday that "my heart breaks for Kate Cox and her family as they endure the emotional and physical stress of this journey—one created by the cruel and inhumane policies of politicians like Ken Paxton, Greg Abbott, and Dan Patrick."
Along with thanking CRR for its "incredible work on the judicial front" fighting "for people like Kate Cox," Davis—who made national headlines a decade ago for her hourslong filibuster of anti-choice legislation—declared that "to turn things around, we must confront these injustices at both the ballot box and in the courtroom."
Congresswoman Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), the House minority whip, said on social media that "Kate Cox is bravely sharing her pain with the world while Republican extremist Ken Paxton threatens to throw her doctors in jail if they provide her abortion care. This is the GOP's post-Roe America. It's cruel. It's inhumane. And we have to stop them."
As the Houston Chronicle reported on Cox's decision to leave the state:
The development likely marks the end of the litigation, as the abortion in question is now a moot issue, said Joanna Grossman, a law professor at Southern Methodist University. Yet, the case could inspire other women with dangerous pregnancies to file similar suits, she said.
Cox is believed to be the first in the country to sue for permission to get an abortion since the fall of Roe v. Wade and Texas' implementation of a near-total abortion ban.
"It kind of gives a blueprint for other plaintiffs who are in similar situations," Grossman said. "I expect we'll see more of these cases, both in Texas and in other banned states.
The newspaper noted that "the Texas Supreme Court is still weighing a larger case brought by 22 women who, like Cox, faced dangerous pregnancy complications and were denied abortions because the emergency exception to the state's ban was so vague their doctors feared legal consequences."
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization last year, over a dozen states have banned abortion with very limited exceptions—forcing nearly 1 in 5 patients to travel out of state to obtain abortion care in the first half of this year, according to research released Friday by the Guttmacher Institute.
"We knew that more people have been traveling across state lines for abortion since the end of Roe, but these findings are stunning nonetheless, and powerfully illustrate just how disruptive the overturning of Roe has been for tens of thousands of abortion patients," said institute data scientist and project lead Isaac Maddow-Zimet.
Kelly Baden, Guttmacher's vice president for public policy, stressed that "policies that protect and expand access, such as those that permit any qualified healthcare provider—not just physicians—to offer abortion care or shield laws that protect providers from criminal investigation from hostile states, have been critical in helping states meet patients' needs."
"We must also acknowledge the role that abortion funds and other support networks have played in helping people overcome the numerous financial and logistical barriers that traveling for abortion care entails," Baden added. "However, nothing can substitute for sound public policy that recognizes abortion as a critical, necessary component of basic healthcare that everyone deserves, regardless of where they live."
After the Texas Supreme Court blocked a judge's order enabling Kate Cox to terminate a pregnancy due to the fetus having a fatal condition, the 31-year-old Dallas resident has fled the state for abortion care, her lawyers announced Monday.
"This past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), which filed the case for Cox last week. "Her health is on the line. She's been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn't wait any longer. This is why judges and politicians should not be making healthcare decisions for pregnant people—they are not doctors."
"This is the result of the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade: Women are forced to beg for urgent healthcare in court," Northup added. "Kate's case has shown the world that abortion bans are dangerous for pregnant people, and exceptions don't work. She desperately wanted to be able to get care where she lives and recover at home surrounded by family. While Kate had the ability to leave the state, most people do not, and a situation like this could be a death sentence."
CRR is not disclosing where Cox is going for care. The mother of two is about 20 weeks pregnant with a fetus that has trisomy 18, a chromosomal abnormality that could result in a miscarriage, stillbirth, or the death of her child in the hours or days after birth. Her doctors warned that continuing the pregnancy would threaten her future fertility.
The Texas Supreme Court's Friday decision blocking the judge's order was only temporary. The Monday announcement from CRR came as Cox was still awaiting a permanent decision, which could have been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cox's case has garnered attention across Texas and the United States. Former Democratic Texas Sen. Wendy Davis took aim at the state's Republican attorney general, governor, and lieutenant governor, saying Monday that "my heart breaks for Kate Cox and her family as they endure the emotional and physical stress of this journey—one created by the cruel and inhumane policies of politicians like Ken Paxton, Greg Abbott, and Dan Patrick."
Along with thanking CRR for its "incredible work on the judicial front" fighting "for people like Kate Cox," Davis—who made national headlines a decade ago for her hourslong filibuster of anti-choice legislation—declared that "to turn things around, we must confront these injustices at both the ballot box and in the courtroom."
Congresswoman Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), the House minority whip, said on social media that "Kate Cox is bravely sharing her pain with the world while Republican extremist Ken Paxton threatens to throw her doctors in jail if they provide her abortion care. This is the GOP's post-Roe America. It's cruel. It's inhumane. And we have to stop them."
As the Houston Chronicle reported on Cox's decision to leave the state:
The development likely marks the end of the litigation, as the abortion in question is now a moot issue, said Joanna Grossman, a law professor at Southern Methodist University. Yet, the case could inspire other women with dangerous pregnancies to file similar suits, she said.
Cox is believed to be the first in the country to sue for permission to get an abortion since the fall of Roe v. Wade and Texas' implementation of a near-total abortion ban.
"It kind of gives a blueprint for other plaintiffs who are in similar situations," Grossman said. "I expect we'll see more of these cases, both in Texas and in other banned states.
The newspaper noted that "the Texas Supreme Court is still weighing a larger case brought by 22 women who, like Cox, faced dangerous pregnancy complications and were denied abortions because the emergency exception to the state's ban was so vague their doctors feared legal consequences."
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization last year, over a dozen states have banned abortion with very limited exceptions—forcing nearly 1 in 5 patients to travel out of state to obtain abortion care in the first half of this year, according to research released Friday by the Guttmacher Institute.
"We knew that more people have been traveling across state lines for abortion since the end of Roe, but these findings are stunning nonetheless, and powerfully illustrate just how disruptive the overturning of Roe has been for tens of thousands of abortion patients," said institute data scientist and project lead Isaac Maddow-Zimet.
Kelly Baden, Guttmacher's vice president for public policy, stressed that "policies that protect and expand access, such as those that permit any qualified healthcare provider—not just physicians—to offer abortion care or shield laws that protect providers from criminal investigation from hostile states, have been critical in helping states meet patients' needs."
"We must also acknowledge the role that abortion funds and other support networks have played in helping people overcome the numerous financial and logistical barriers that traveling for abortion care entails," Baden added. "However, nothing can substitute for sound public policy that recognizes abortion as a critical, necessary component of basic healthcare that everyone deserves, regardless of where they live."
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."
Mamdani won the House minority leader's district by double digits in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, prompting one critic to ask, "Do those voters not matter?"
Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, but Democratic U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—whose district Mamdani won by double digits—is still refusing to endorse him, "blue-no-matter-who" mantra be damned.
Criticism of Jeffries (D-N.Y.) mounted Friday after he sidestepped questions about whether he agreed with the democratic socialist Mamdani's proposed policies—including a rent freeze, universal public transportation, and free supermarkets—during an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" earlier this week.
"He's going to have to demonstrate to a broader electorate—including in many of the neighborhoods that I represent in Brooklyn—that his ideas can actually be put into reality," Jeffries said in comments that drew praise from scandal-ridden incumbent Democratic Mayor Eric Adams, who opted to run independently. Another Democrat, disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, is also running on his own.
"Shit like this does more to undermine faith in the institution of the Democratic Party than anything Mamdani might ever say or do," Amanda Litman, co-founder and executive director of Run For Something—a political action group that recruits young, diverse progressives to run for down-ballot offices—said on social media in response to Jeffries' refusal to endorse Mamdani.
"He won the primary! Handily!!" Litman added. "Does that electorate not count? Do those voters not matter?"
Writer and professor Roxane Gay noted on Bluesky that "Jeffries is an establishment Democrat. He will always work for the establishment. He is not a disruptor or innovator or individual thinker. Within that framework, his gutless behavior toward Mamdani or any progressive candidate makes a lot of sense."
City College of New York professor Angus Johnston said on the social network Bluesky that "even if Jeffries does eventually endorse Mamdani, the only response available to Mamdani next year if someone asks him whether he's endorsing Jeffries is three seconds of incredulous laughter."
Jeffries has repeatedly refused to endorse Mamdani, a staunch supporter of Palestinian liberation and vocal opponent of Israel's genocidal annihilation of Gaza. The minority leader—whose all-time top campaign donor is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to AIPAC Tracker—has especially criticized Mamdani's use of the phrase "globalize the intifada," a call for universal justice and liberation.
Mamdani's stance doesn't seem to have harmed his support among New York's Jewish voters, who according to recent polling prefer him over any other mayoral candidate by a double-digit margin.