June, 28 2013, 05:13pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Robyn Shepherd, ACLU national, 212-519-7829 or 549-2666, media@aclu.org
Susan Watson, ACLU of Alabama, 334-265-2754, swatson@aclualabama.org
Federal Judge Blocks Alabama Abortion Law
Law Would Have Forced Most Clinics in the State to Stop Providing Abortions
MONTGOMERY, Ala.
A federal judge has temporarily blocked an Alabama law that imposes medically unnecessary restrictions that would force most of the clinics in the state to stop providing abortions. The law was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Alabama, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Planned Parenthood Southeast.
"We're grateful that the court stepped in to prevent politicians from taking away a woman's ability to make this personal and private decision," said Susan Watson, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama. "We will continue to fight to ensure that these decisions can be made by a woman with her family and her doctor, not by politicians sitting in Montgomery."
The law, which requires every physician who performs an abortion at a clinic to have staff privileges at a local hospital, is similar to a Mississippi law that was blocked by a federal district court earlier this year and to a bill recently passed by the Wisconsin legislature that has not yet been signed by the governor.
Doctors and leading medical groups, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have opposed such requirements because they are unnecessary for the provision of safe, high-quality health care, and because they prevent women from getting necessary services. Alabama law does not require doctors providing surgery at other health centers to have admitting privileges even for more complicated procedures.
"The law is part of a part of a coordinated national campaign designed to outlaw abortion, state by state," said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "These laws insult women's intelligence by claiming to be about safety, when the true intent is to shut down clinics and prevent a woman from making a real decision about her pregnancy."
If the court had not blocked the law, it would have forced three of the state's five abortion clinics to stop providing abortions. Doctors at these clinics are unable to obtain hospital staff privileges due to factors such as the hospital's opposition to abortion or a requirement that physicians admit a minimum number of patients to the hospital. Because the procedure is extremely safe, it is impossible for physicians who provide abortions to meet the minimum requirement.
If the law were allowed to take effect, the only abortion clinics left in the state would be in Huntsville and Tuscaloosa. There would be no clinics that provide abortions left in any of the state's three most populous cities - Birmingham, Mobile, and Montgomery.
For more information about this case, including legal documents please visit:
aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/planned-parenthood-southeast-inc-reproductive-health-services-et-al-v-bentley
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
House Dems Launch Effort to Thwart GOP Evisceration of Medicaid, SNAP
"Will any House Republican join us, or will they all support taking healthcare and food from millions of Americans?" asked Rep. Greg Casar, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
May 06, 2025
A group of House Democrats launched an effort Tuesday to force a vote on a measure that would prevent Republicans from slashing Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance in their forthcoming reconciliation package, which is expected to include massive tax breaks for the wealthy.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said his discharge petition is "an opportunity for every member of Congress to show where they stand."
If the petition receives at least 218 signatures, the House would be required to vote on a bill that would prohibit cuts to Medicaid or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process, which Republicans are using to advance President Donald Trump's legislative agenda.
"The Republican budget includes the largest cuts to Medicaid and SNAP in our nation's history—cuts that would jeopardize healthcare and food assistance for millions of Americans," Boyle added. "We intend to gather 218 signatures from both parties, and I sincerely hope my colleagues across the aisle will join us. If they truly believe in protecting these essential benefits, this is their chance to prove it."
The petition currently has seven signatures listed, and several other leading Democrats—including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus—have endorsed the petition.
"House Democrats oppose taking food and healthcare from working people to pay for tax cuts for billionaires," said Casar. "Now the question is: Will any House Republican join us, or will they all support taking healthcare and food from millions of Americans?"
"Republicans should join Democrats in signing this discharge petition to bring our bill to the House floor to ensure Medicaid will not be cut to pass tax breaks that help the rich get richer."
To succeed, Boyle's petition needs the support of every member of the House Democratic caucus and at least five Republicans.
Some GOP swing votes, such as Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, have expressed concerns about the $880 billion in Medicaid cuts that the party has voted to allow in the reconciliation package. Bacon has proposed a ceiling of $500 billion in spending reductions over a decade, which would still be the largest Medicaid cut in U.S. history and remove millions from the program.
Republican hardliners, meanwhile, are clamoring for "structural Medicaid reform," according to a letter that 20 far-right GOP lawmakers sent to their colleagues last week. The letter was led by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), but Politicoreported that the letter's true author appears to be the president of a policy organization funded by the Koch network.
Medicaid cuts are broadly unpopular with the American public. According to one recent survey, 76% of U.S. voters oppose "major cuts" to the program.
Trump has publicly claimed to oppose Medicaid cuts, but one top House Republican said over the weekend that the president has expressed "openness" to imposing work requirements on enrollees—most of whom already work.
In the states where they've been tried, Medicaid work requirements have caused many to lose benefits without boosting employment.
"Republicans have repeatedly claimed they're not going to take away people's healthcare by cutting Medicaid," Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement Tuesday. "If they're telling the truth, Republicans should join Democrats in signing this discharge petition to bring our bill to the House floor to ensure Medicaid will not be cut to pass tax breaks that help the rich get richer."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Tariffs Seen as 'Baby Tax' as Costs Soar for Parenting Essentials
"His tariff policies are making it harder and more expensive to prepare for a new baby or raise kids, and his solution is to tell parents to buy fewer toys for their children," said the head of the Groundwork Collaborative.
May 06, 2025
The progressive think tank Groundwork Collaborative on Tuesday highlighted how U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs are effectively a "baby tax" paid by parents, given rising prices of everything "from car seats to sippy cups."
"President Trump's economic policies are an affront to young families," said Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens in a statement. "His tariff policies are making it harder and more expensive to prepare for a new baby or raise kids, and his solution is to tell parents to buy fewer toys for their children."
"While the president works overtime to give his billionaire donors a massive tax giveaway, he's placing a baby tax on every parent across the country," added Owens, referencing an effort to get a package containing more tax cuts for the rich—paid for by gutting the social safety net—through the GOP-controlled Congress.
"He's placing a baby tax on every parent across the country."
Citing the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA)—which has directly pressured Trump to "exclude all juvenile products" from tariffs on Chinese imports—The New York Timesreported Friday that "about 90% of durable baby and children's products sold in the United States are manufactured overseas, with the vast majority produced in China."
Noting that statistic, Groundwork focused on the costs of some essentials for babies and young children, including clothes, cribs, high chairs, sippy cups, and toys. For example, the group pointed out, the car seat and stroller companies Evenflo, Nuna, and UPPAbaby have recently announced price hikes.
"This represents a major challenge for parents, as car seats—which can run over $400—are required by law in all 50 states and should be bought new due to safety concerns," Groundwork said. "New parents spend, on average, $1,000 on baby safety gear."
As for strollers—or, as Trump put it, "the thing that you carry the babies around in"—UPPAbaby's Vista "just increased from $900 to $1,200," Groundwork continued. "Or, for a cheaper option, Bombi's flagship stroller now costs $225 instead of $199."
Some companies, including UPPAbaby, have made clear that the price increases are a direct result of Trump's evolving tariff policy.
"Due to rising import tariffs, updated pricing will go into effect on May 5th, 2025 across most UPPAbaby products," the company explained in a blog post last month. "If tariffs are reduced or lifted, we'll reassess pricing as quickly as business operations allow."
UPPAbaby is also among 13 U.S.-based companies that launched an advertising campaign calling tariffs a "baby tax," as The Washington Postreported last week. The ad declares that "becoming a parent is one of life's greatest joys, one our country should champion, not tax."
In addition to UPPAbaby chief executive Bob Monahan, the ad is signed by the CEOs of Babylist, Ergobaby, Frida, Guava Family, Hatch Baby, Lalo, Million Dollar Baby Co., Mockingbird, Munchkin, Nanit, Owlet, and Willow Innocations.
Groundwork highlighted Tuesday that "the CEO of popular baby accessory brand Munchkin, Steve Dunn, said the company will increase prices on about 90% of products, likely by at least 20%. Their cheapest high chair is currently $170."
Crib costs are also a concern. "Three-quarters of all baby furniture is made in China," Groundwork noted. "Get ready for some sleepless nights: the popular smart bassinet SNOO is manufactured in China and might soon cost more than its current $1,695 price tag."
Additionally, the clothing giant "Carter's has already raised prices on many items," which often come from Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, and Vietnam, and "Mattel CFO Anthony DiSilvestro has warned of possible price hikes as 40% of Mattel toys come from China," the think tank added.
Groundwork's statement was released as a bipartisan group called the Cost Coalition officially launched on Tuesday. Its goal, according toThe Associated Press, is "to highlight Trump's struggle to control rising costs."
"In 100 days, Donald Trump put the best-performing economy in the world on a crash course toward recession. Trump's tariffs—the biggest middle class tax hike in modern history—are making everyday prices skyrocket and wreaking havoc for businesses large and small," said Terry Holt, a former spokesperson for Republican leaders, and Andrew Bates, who was a Democratic spokesperson, in a joint statement to the AP.
"Next up are grossly inflationary tax cuts for the wealthy that will only saddle future generations with staggering debt," Holt and Bates continued. "Whether you're a Republican, Democrat, or anything else, Donald Trump's agenda is an economic crisis threatening your livelihood and standard of living."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'They Just Made Sh*t Up': Declassified Spy Memo Undercuts Trump Pretext for Deportations to El Salvador
"Sunlight remains the best disinfectant for falsehoods," said one open government advocate.
May 06, 2025
A memo released Monday by the Trump administration in response to a Freedom of Information Act request confirmed that U.S. intelligence agencies never agreed with President Donald Trump's claim in March that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro controls the criminal gang Tren de Aragua—an assertion that was used to justify sending hundreds of migrants to a notorious Salvadoran prison.
The document said that "while Venezuela's permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States."
Trump's claim about Maduro's connection to the group had been called into question by The New York Times in March, after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act for only the fourth time in U.S. history. The law empowers the federal government to summarily expel citizens of a country that is at war with or invading the United States.
The Times reported at the time, based on interviews with officials, that the intelligence community's findings about Tren de Aragua were "starkly at odds" with Trump's claims. The anonymous officials said the gang was not taking orders from Maduro's government.
That reporting prompted the U.S. Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into the "selective leak of inaccurate" information to the Times, with the Trump administration criticizing the Times for its "misleading" report.
Attorney General Pam Bondi also said in an April memo that the department would roll back press freedom protections in leak investigations after The Washington Postreported on the memo that was declassified Monday. The Post reported on the document from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in mid-April when it was still classified.
"The declassification proves that the material should have been public from the start—not used as an excuse to suppress sharing information with the press," Lauren Harper, the Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told the Times. The group filed the FOIA request for the memo, dated April 7, to be released.
A declassified ODNI memo disclosed in response to a @Freedom.Press FOIA request confirms a @nytimes.com report from March: U.S. intel agencies rejected the claim Trump made to justify deporting Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador. www.nytimes.com/2025/05/05/u...
[image or embed]
— Alexander Howard (@digiphile.bsky.social) May 5, 2025 at 10:27 PM
The memo noted that the FBI partially dissented with the intelligence community's findings about Tren de Aragua.
Analysts at the FBI agreed with the agencies' overall assessment but believed "some Venezuelan government officials facilitate [Tren de Aragua] members' migration from Venezuela to the United States and use members as proxies in Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and the United States to advance what they see as the Maduro regime's goal of destabilizing governments and undermining public safety in these countries."
"Most" of the intelligence community "judges that intelligence indicating that regime leaders are directing or enabling [Tren de Aragua] migration to the United States is not credible," the memo reads.
Intelligence agencies also noted in the memo that detainees accused of being members of the gang could have been motivated "to make false allegations about their ties to the Venezuelan regime in an effort to deflect responsibility for their crimes and to lessen any punishment by providing exculpatory or otherwise 'valuable' information to U.S. prosecutors."
Analysts said they had not collected information about communications or funding exchanges between Venezuelan officials and leaders of Tren de Aragua.
"So you mean kidnapping folks off the streets and sending them to a foreign gulag was not justified by our own intelligence?" said the Arkansas Justice Project. "They just made shit up to dog whistle their base. The AEA argument was never legitimate and they knew it all along."
After the memo was released, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said it was "outrageous that as President Trump and his administration work hard every day to make America safe by deporting these violent criminals, some in the media remain intent on twisting and manipulating intelligence assessments to undermine the president's agenda to keep the American people safe."
Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have blocked the Trump administration from sending more migrants to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, and the ACLU last month asked a federal judge to facilitate the return of all Venezuelans sent to the country's Terrorism Confinement Center to ensure they have due process via immigration hearings.
But judges hearing cases regarding Trump's mass deportations under the Alien Enemies Act have not yet questioned the administration's debunked claims about Tren de Aragua and the Maduro government.
Writer and open government advocate Alexander B. Howard said the release of the memo proves that "sunlight remains the best disinfectant for falsehoods."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular