May, 29 2012, 03:17pm EDT

Pro-Choice Americans Call on Congress to Stop Attack on D.C. Women's Freedom and Privacy
WASHINGTON
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, today joined Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Mayor Vincent Gray, and other civil and reproductive rights leaders to amplify their opposition to anti-choice bills that would undermine the ability of women in the city to make personal, private medical decisions with their doctors.
The press conference comes one week after the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on H.R.3803, a bill introduced by anti-choice Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), to ban abortion at 20 weeks in the District of Columbia, without consideration for the woman's situation, including cases of rape, incest, or fetal anomaly. District of Columbia resident Christy Zink, who had an abortion at 21 weeks and five days after doctors found a cyst on the brain of the fetus and a follow-up MRI revealed severe fetal anomalies of the brain, testified at the hearing. If the ban proposed by the bills had been in effect, Zink would not have had this option in D.C.
The House bill is modeled after an abortion ban enacted in Nebraska in 2010. So far, seven more states followed Nebraska's lead and now anti-choice organizations are pressuring Congress to override local elected leaders and impose this ban on the women of D.C. Keenan addressed these attacks at the news conference. Her remarks, as prepared for delivery, follow:
On behalf of our one million supporters nationwide, I am honored to join Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Mayor Vincent Gray, and the other leaders here today.
We believe that no woman's constitutional right to choose should depend upon her ZIP code or her income.
Unfortunately, too many members of Congress disagree with this core value--and they're using Washington, D.C. as a testing ground to interfere in the personal, private decisions that women make with their doctors. We have seen what happens to women in this city when some members of Congress try to play mayor or councilmember.
Just last year, anti-choice lawmakers in the House of Representatives used a must-pass budget bill to reimpose a law that bars the District of Columbia from using its own local dollars to provide low-income residents with access to abortion.
What happened to women as a result of this callous and mean-spirited action?
At just one local clinic here in the District, 28 women were caught in the political crossfire. They had scheduled appointments when funding was legal but...in just a matter of days...Congress intervened and these 28 women had appointments but no way to pay for them. Local charities scrambled to help - but that's just one clinic, one day.
No one knows what happened to the women with appointments for the next day or the day after that.
Can any of us imagine how it would feel to make a medical appointment only to discover that Congress has decided to intervene the day before?
What's worse is that the politicians behind this disgraceful law, most notably Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, aren't finished.
They are targeting D.C. women with yet another anti-abortion bill.
This latest attack would ban abortion at 20 weeks, without consideration for the woman's situation or protections for her health, or even in the cases of rape or incest.
The D.C.-related attacks are part of a broader War on Women.
Let's look at the facts, just in case someone tries to tell you that the War on Women is not real.
Last year, the House held eight votes on choice-related issues, the highest number in more than a decade.
And they aren't stopping.
On Wednesday, the House is scheduled to vote on a bill that, contrary to its title of the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, does nothing to address the serious issues of sex discrimination or gender bias in society. NARAL Pro-Choice America has long opposed reproductive coercion in any form--including societal pressures to have a child of a particular sex. However, this legislation is unenforceable and unworkable. It essentially turns medical professionals into mind readers by requiring them to report even suspicions that sex is a factor in a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy. It even threatens doctors and other medical professionals with prison sentences. This bill is a clear intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship and is designed to continue chipping away at a woman's right to choose.
This bill was written by the notorious Rep. Franks, who has voted against equal pay, prenatal care, and contraception.
The hypocrisy of Rep. Franks represents cynical politics at their worst.
Thus far, anti-choice House leaders have lined up no fewer than five separate bills with anti-abortion provisions for floor action this session.
This far-reaching agenda is out of touch with our country's values and priorities--and we are fully prepared to fight back against these egregious attacks on a woman's right to choose.
Last year, NARAL delivered nearly 135,000 signatures in opposition to the D.C. abortion ban.
We already have channeled thousands of messages in opposition to the latest legislative attack on D.C. women.
As we fight the battles of today, we also must change who controls the U.S. House of Representatives.
NARAL Pro-Choice America elects pro-choice candidates and supports pro-choice policies.
We know that the best way to change this situation is to elect more members who share our values and won't try to moonlight as members of the D.C. City Council.
Delegate Norton, Mayor Gray, our nationwide network of activists and our pro-choice allies here today stand with you and are ready to continue to fight for the women of D.C.
For over 50 years, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) has fought to protect and advance reproductive freedom at the federal and state levels—including access to abortion care, birth control, pregnancy and post-partum care, and paid family leave—for everybody. Reproductive Freedom for All is powered by its more than 4 million members from every state and congressional district in the country, representing the 8 in 10 Americans who support legal abortion.
202.973.3000LATEST NEWS
'Unhinged' Trump Wishes 'Merry Christmas to All, Including the Radical Left Scum'
"Nothing more Christian than to be a hateful wretched fuck on Jesus’ birthday," quipped one critic.
Dec 25, 2025
In a message called typically on-brand by observers, US President Donald Trump wished "Merry Christmas to all"—including his political opponents, whom he described in decidedly unchristlike language.
"Merry Christmas to all, including the Radical Left Scum that is doing everything possible to destroy our Country, but are failing badly," Trump said Christmas Eve on his Truth Social network.
"We no longer have Open Borders, Men in Women’s Sports, Transgender for Everyone, or Weak Law Enforcement," the president added. "What we do have is a Record Stock Market and 401K’s, Lowest Crime numbers in decades, No Inflation, and yesterday, a 4.3 GDP, two points better than expected. Tariffs have given us Trillions of Dollars in Growth and Prosperity, and the strongest National Security we have ever had. We are respected again, perhaps like never before. God Bless America!!!"
While nothing new—Trump has used past Christmas messages to tell people he doesn't like to "go to hell" and "rot in hell"—observers, including some MAGA supporters, were still left shaking their heads.
"Radical Left Scum" 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣Christmas greetings from a liar, traitor, pedophile, and overall shitstain upon society.
[image or embed]
— Bill Madden (@maddenifico.bsky.social) December 24, 2025 at 9:00 PM
"Nothing more Christian than to be a hateful wretched fuck on Jesus’ birthday!" liberal political commentator Dean Withers said on X.
Another popular X account posted: "A sitting president of the United States using Christmas Day to spew venom at fellow Americans he calls 'Radical Left Scum' isn’t just unpresidential—it’s unhinged, un-Christian, and utterly beneath the office."
"This is the behavior of a bitter, small man who can’t even pretend to unify for one holy day," she added. "Shameful. Disgraceful. Pathetic."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Palau Signs Controversial $7.5 Million Deal to Take 75 Trump Deportees
"What if we spent the $100,000 per person in America setting them up with housing assistance, healthcare, education, etc?" asked one critic.
Dec 25, 2025
Palau said Wednesday that it has agreed to take in up to 75 people deported from the United States during President Donald Trump's purge of unauthorized immigrants in exchange for millions of dollars in financial assistance—a move that has sparked considerable opposition among the Pacific archipelago nation's roughly 18,000 inhabitants.
The office of Palauan President Surangel Whipps Jr. announced a memorandum of understanding with the United States under which the country will receive $7.5 million in assistance in exchange for taking in 75 third-country deportees who cannot be repatriated to their countries of origin.
Earlier this week, US State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott said the people who will be sent to Palau have “no known criminal histories," as is the case with the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants in the United States, who have committed no crime other than the mere misdemeanor of entering the country illegally.
However, Palauans have voiced concerns over US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's remarks during a Cabinet meeting earlier this year in which he said that, “We want to send some of the most despicable human beings—perverts, pedophiles, and child rapists—to your countries as a favor to us."
Whipps said Wednesday that the relocation plan involves “people seeking safety and stability."
“These are not criminals,” the president said during earlier debate on the proposal. “Their only offense was entering the United States illegally and working without proper permits.”
However, Palau's Congress and its influential Council of Chiefs have twice rejected the transfers.
Piggot's statement "highlighted US commitments to partner with Palau on strengthening the country’s healthcare infrastructure, increasing Palau’s capacity to combat transnational crime and drug trafficking, and bolstering Palau’s civil service pension system."
Palau, which was administered by the US from 1947-94 and is now associated with the United States under the 1994 Compact of Free Association, which guaranteed the country nearly $900 million economic aid over 20 years in exchange for exclusive US military access.
The country's foreign policy often tracks closely to that of the US. For example, Palau is sometimes among the handful of usually similarly small nations that vote along with the United States and Israel against United Nations resolutions condemning Israeli crimes or affirming Palestinian rights.
Other developing nations including Eswatini, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Uganda have also agreed to take in US deportees or are considering doing so.
Reactions to the US-Palau agreement drew criticism on social media, where one X user called the deal a "bribe" and another popular Bluesky account asked, "What if we spent the $100,000 per person in America setting them up with housing assistance, healthcare, education, etc?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump 'Choosing From the War Crimes Menu' With 'Quarantine' on Venezuela Oil Exports
"Economic strangulation is warfare and civilians always pay the price," lamented CodePink.
Dec 25, 2025
President Donald Trump has ordered US military forces to further escalate their aggression against Venezuela by enforcing a "quarantine" on the South American nation's oil—by far its main export—in what one peace group called an attempted act of "economic strangulation."
"While military options still exist, the focus is to first use economic pressure by enforcing sanctions to reach the outcome the White House is looking [for]," a US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Reuters.
The move follows the deployment of an armada of US warships and thousands of troops to the region, threats to invade Venezuela, oil tanker seizures off the Venezuelan coast, Trump's authorization of covert CIA action against the socialist government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and airstrikes against boats allegedly running drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that have killed more than 100 people in what critics say are murders and likely war crimes.
This, atop existing economic sanctions that experts say have killed tens of thousands of Venezuelans since they were first imposed during the first Trump administration in 2017.
"The efforts so far have put tremendous pressure on Maduro, and the belief is that by late January, Venezuela will be facing an economic calamity unless it agrees to make significant concessions to the US," the official told Reuters.
The official's use of the word "quarantine" evoked the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, an existential standoff that occurred after the John F. Kennedy administration imposed a naval blockade around Cuba to prevent Soviet nuclear missiles from being deployed on the island, even as the US was surrounding the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons.
"This is an illegal blockade," the women-led peace group CodePink said in response to the Reuters report. "Calling it a 'quarantine' doesn’t change the reality. The US regime is using hunger as a weapon of war to force regime change in Venezuela. Economic strangulation is warfare and civilians always pay the price. The US is a regime of terror."
Critics have also compared Trump's aggression to the George W. Bush administration's buildup to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, initially referred to as Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL). But unlike Bush, Trump—who derided Bush for not seizing Iraq's petroleum resources as spoils of war—has openly acknowledged his desire to take Venezuela's oil.
"Maybe we will sell it, maybe we will keep it,” he Trump said on Monday. “Maybe we’ll use it in the strategic reserves. We’re keeping the ships also.”
On Wednesday, a panel of United Nations experts said that the US blockade and boat strikes constitute "illegal armed aggression" against Venezuela.
Multiple efforts by US lawmakers—mostly Democrats, but also a handful of anti-war Republicans—to pass a war powers resolution blocking the Trump administration from bombing boats or attacking Venezuela have failed.
The blockade and vessel seizures have paralyzed Venezuela's oil exports. Ports are clogged with full tankers whose operators are fearful of entering international waters. Venezuela-bound tankers have also turned back for fear of seizure. Although Venezuelan military vessels are accompanying tankers, the escorts stop once the ships reach international waters.
According to the New York Times, Venezuela is considering putting armed troops aboard tankers bound for China, which, along with Russia, has pledged its support—but little more—for Caracas.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


