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
For Immediate Release
January, 10 2014, 01:51pm EDT
Contact:
Brett Abrams : 516-841-1105 : brett@fitzgibbonmedia.com
Press Briefing at NARAL Pro-Choice America HQs on the Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the US Highlights Winning Agenda for 2014
On Tuesday, January 14, NARAL Pro-Choice America and NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation will host reporters for an in-person briefing at their Washington, D.C. headquarters to coincide with the release of the 23rd edition of Who Decides? The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States. The report, published each year, provides individual letter grades on the status of women's reproductive rights for all 50 states and provides a comprehensive view of choice-related legislation and court decisions in those states.
WASHINGTON
On Tuesday, January 14, NARAL Pro-Choice America and NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation will host reporters for an in-person briefing at their Washington, D.C. headquarters to coincide with the release of the 23rd edition of Who Decides? The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States. The report, published each year, provides individual letter grades on the status of women's reproductive rights for all 50 states and provides a comprehensive view of choice-related legislation and court decisions in those states. This year's report also includes a new section on the status of anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers in the states.
At the briefing, Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, will present the report's findings on 2013's high-profile attacks on reproductive freedom in all 50 states, including Ohio, Texas and North Carolina, highlight victories for the women's reproductive rights in California, Virginia and beyond and outline the pro-choice movement's agenda in 2014. The report documents the 24 states that passed 53 anti-choice measures in 2013 - while at the same time highlighting the 10 states that enacted 16 pro-choice measures, last year.
On Tuesday, January 14, NARAL Pro-Choice America will also release their annual Congressional Record on Choice, which grades individual members of Congress on their voting records on issues concerning women's reproductive freedoms.
WHAT: In-Person Media Briefing for credentialed press at NARAL Pro-Choice America headquarters in Washington, D.C. coinciding with the release of NARAL Pro-Choice America's 23rd edition of Who Decides? The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States, the nation's most comprehensive report on choice-related legislation and court decisions.
WHEN: Tuesday, January 14th. Briefing begins at 10:00 a.m. ET. Attendees must arrive by 9:45 a.m. to allow time for security.
SPEAKERS INCLUDE: Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America; Donna Crane, the organization's vice president for policy; and Erika West, the organization's political director.
"The anti-choice War on Women did not slow down in 2013 and we are certain that radical right-wing politicians will only ramp up their attacks on women in 2014 as the midterm elections approach," explained Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "In 2014, NARAL Pro-Choice America is as committed as ever to stopping the opponents of a woman's right to choose everywhere they pick a fight, but we're not just playing defense anymore: we'll work just as hard to expand our freedoms, so that every woman has not just the right, but the opportunity to make whatever choice is right for her."
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
Federal Judge Says Trump's Handpicked Attorney May Have 'Tainted' Case Against Comey With False Statements
"I have never seen a more scathing opinion, with this many errors, in any criminal case I have ever covered," said one legal reporter.
Nov 17, 2025
The attorney handpicked to prosecute President Donald Trump's enemies may have "tainted the grand jury proceedings" against former FBI Director James Comey by making multiple false statements, said a federal judge Monday.
In a 24-page ruling, Federal Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick said that the Department of Justice (DOJ) engaged in a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” when moving to secure the indictment of the former FBI director in September, following a direct order from Trump to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
As a result, Fitzpatrick granted what he called an "extraordinary remedy," requiring all grand jury materials in the case, including audio recordings of the grand jury proceedings, to be made available to the defense. Typically, information from a grand jury indictment is kept secret until it is revealed at trial. But Fitzpatrick said the "unique circumstances" made it necessary to release it "to fully protect the rights of the accused."
The most glaring of these missteps were made by Lindsey Halligan, the interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Despite being a former insurance lawyer who'd never prosecuted a criminal case, she singlehandedly brought the indictment before the grand jury, which accused Comey of lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020 about whether he authorized someone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding the bureau's investigation of Hillary Clinton.
Despite her lack of experience, Halligan—a former contestant in one of Trump's beauty pageants—was plucked from obscurity to serve as the interim US attorney for Comey's home district after Trump pushed out her predecessor, who refused to bring charges against Comey due to lack of evidence.
Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, another of Trump's enemies who Halligan has brought charges against, last week successfully got a different judge to hear their argument that Halligan was unlawfully appointed to her position.
Fitzpatrick said his decision to open up grand jury materials in the Comey case came in part because of two "fundamental misstatements of the law" made by Halligan, that he said "could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process" and potentially rise to the level of "misconduct."
Halligan asserted that Comey did not have the Fifth Amendment right not to testify, which Fitzpatrick wrote “ignores the foundational rule of law that if Mr. Comey exercised his right not to testify, the jury could draw no negative inference from that decision."
He also said that a separate statement made by Halligan, which remains redacted, "may have reasonably set an expectation in the minds of the grand jurors that rather than the government bear the burden to prove Mr. Comey's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the burden shifts to Mr. Comey to explain away the government's evidence."
Fitzpatrick said the prosecutor also made the highly unusual argument that the grand jury did not have to rely solely on evidence presented in the government's indictment—which was a measly page-and-a-half long—to determine probable cause. Instead, Fitzpatrick said, Halligan suggested the jury "could be assured the government had more evidence–perhaps better evidence–that would be presented at trial."
That interpretation aligns with the criticism Fitzpatrick voiced at a hearing earlier this month, calling out the Trump DOJ's “indict first, investigate later” approach to these political prosecutions.
Fitzpatrick further suggested that Halligan and the DOJ violated the Fourth Amendment by relying on evidence sourced from FBI search warrants executed in 2019 and 2020 during a separate case against one of Comey's former attorneys, Daniel Richman, whom the indictment alleged was the source Comey authorized to speak to the media.
"Under long-standing Fourth Amendment precedent," Fitzpatrick wrote, "the government may search for and seize only those materials expressly authorized by the terms of a search warrant issued in connection with specific predicate offenses."
Fitzpatrick also wrote that an FBI agent called to testify before the grand jury may have exposed information subject to attorney-client privilege between Comey and Richman, which he called a "highly irregular and a radical departure from past DOJ practice."
"I have never seen a more scathing opinion, with this many errors, in any criminal case I have ever covered," said Sarah Lynch, who covers the DOJ for Reuters.
The order may result in the case being thrown out of court entirely before even getting to trial, and the DOJ would be unable to bring it again, with or without prejudice, as the statute of limitations has expired.
If it is found that Halligan was improperly appointed to her position, the case would also fall apart since she was the only attorney who signed the indictment, though Bondi has retroactively claimed she reviewed the document even though she never signed it. It would also potentially derail the case against James.
MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner said that "given today’s ruling... it’s becoming increasingly difficult to see how the indictment does not get dismissed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaire-Funded AI Super PAC Picks Leading Safety Advocate as First Target
"If they are scared of people who understand their business regulating their business, they are telling on themselves," New York State Assemblymember Alex Bores said.
Nov 17, 2025
A super political action committee aimed at taking down elected officials who want to regulate artificial intelligence has chosen its first target for destruction.
CNBC reports that the Leading the Future PAC is going after New York state Assemblymember Alex Bores, a Democrat who is currently running to represent New York's 12th Congressional District.
The PAC, which is backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale, and other AI heavyweights, has singled out Bores' cosponsorship of the AI-regulating RAISE Act as justification to end his political ambitions.
According to CNBC, the bill cosponsored by Bores would force large AI firms "to publish safety protocols for serious misuse... of their tech, such as creating biological weapons or carrying out other criminal activity," and also "to disclose serious incidents, or else face civil penalties from the state attorney general."
Leading the Future accused Bores of pushing though "ideological and politically motivated legislation" that would purportedly "handcuff" America's AI industry.
In promoting the legislation, which passed through both chambers of the New York state Legislature months ago but has not yet been signed by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, Bores touted it as a "light-touch" regulation that would "require basic guardrails for AI safety.
Bores responded to news that he was being targeted by the pro-AI PAC with defiance, and he said it showed why his push to regulate the big AI firms was so important.
"The 'exact profile' they want to go after is someone with a Masters in Computer Science, two patents, and nearly a decade working in tech," he wrote in a post on X. "If they are scared of people who understand their business regulating their business, they are telling on themselves."
He then posted a link to his campaign's ActBlue page and noted the PAC's ties to supporters of President Donald Trump, writing, "If you don't want Trump megadonors writing all tech policy, contribute to help us push back."
Bores is part of a crowded field to succeed Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who announced his retirement in September.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ex-Bangladeshi PM Sentenced to Death Over Deadly Student Protest Crackdown
Human rights defenders voiced concerns over the fairness of the in-absentia trial and death sentences for Sheikh Hasina and her former home minister.
Nov 17, 2025
Human rights groups and capital punishment abolitionists expressed alarm Monday after exiled former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her home minister were sentenced to death by a special tribunal for crimes against humanity for ordering last year's crackdown on student protests that left thousands of people dead and wounded.
Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard asserted in a statement that "this trial and sentence is neither fair nor just."
"Victims need justice and accountability, yet the death penalty simply compounds human rights violations," she said. "It’s the ultimate cruel, degrading, and inhuman punishment and has no place in any justice process."
According to Callamard:
Justice for survivors and victims demands that fiercely independent and impartial proceedings, which meet international human rights standards are conducted. Instead, this trial has been conducted before a court that Amnesty International has long criticized for its lack of independence and history of unfair proceedings. Further, the unprecedented speed of this trial in absentia and verdict raises significant fair trial concerns for a case of this scale and complexity. Although Sheikh Hasina was represented by a court-appointed lawyer, the time to prepare a defense was manifestly inadequate. Such unfair trial indicators are compounded by reports that defense cross examination of evidence deemed to be contradictory was not allowed.
The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) sentenced Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal to death by hanging over their command responsibility for the killings, torture, and the use of lethal force against participants in what became known as the July Uprising.
Former Inspector General of Police Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun was sentenced to five years in prison after he confessed his guilt and turned government witness against Hasina and Khan, both of whom fled to India in August 2024.
Ironically, the ICT was established by Hasina's Awami League government to prosecute the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the 1971 US-backed genocide committed by Pakistani forces in their unsuccessful bid to prevent what was then East Pakistan from becoming the independent nation of Bangladesh.
Last year's protests began as opposition to job quota reforms but escalated into a nationwide uprising against government corruption and human rights violations. The demonstrations forced Hasina—who had led Bangladesh for 15 years—to resign and flee the country on August 5, 2024.
According to the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR), members of Hasina's government and ruling Awami League "systematically engaged in a range of serious human rights violations" during the uprising.
"As many as 1,400 people may have been killed between July 15 and August 5, and thousands were injured, the vast majority of whom were shot by Bangladesh’s security forces," OHCHR found. "Of these, the report indicates that as many as 12-13% of those killed were children. Bangladesh Police reported that 44 of its officers were killed."
According to the ICT's 453-page judgment, Hasina told Sheikh Fazle Noor Taposh, then mayor of Dhaka South, that “police have been ordered to shoot protestors anywhere they can."
The ICT also found that Hasina incited violence with statements including asking if “Razakars’ grandchildren [will] get jobs rather than the grandchildren of the freedom fighters?”
Razakars were paramilitary fighters—mostly pro-Pakistan Bengalis and Biharis—armed and trained by Pakistan who committed some of the worst atrocities of the 1971 genocide. The "freedom fighters" to whom Hasina referred included members of the Awami League, which led the fight for Bangladeshi independence from Pakistan.
Hasina is the daughter of Awami League co-founder Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who is considered the "Father of the Nation" for leading the struggle culminating in the 1971 genocide, Indian invasion, and, ultimately, independence for Bangladesh. He was assassinated along with numerous relatives and staff in 1975.
Hasina condemned the verdict and sentence as "biased and politically motivated."
"We lost control of the situation, but to characterize what happened as a premeditated assault on citizens is simply to misread the facts," she said in a statement, adding that "I am not afraid to face my accusers in a proper tribunal where evidence can be weighed and tested fairly."
Both Hasina and ousted and imprisoned former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan have accused the United States of conducting covert operations to topple their respective governments. Former Bangladeshi ministers allege that the US Agency for International Development and the Central Intelligence Agency—both of which have long histories of subversion, torture, and regime change operations—had hands in the July Uprising. The Biden administration denied any involvement in ousting Hasina.
The condemned defendants may now appeal to the Supreme Court.
Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Peace laureate who leads Bangladesh's interim government ahead of parliamentary elections expected to be held next February, called the verdicts and death sentences "important, though limited, justice."
"Today, the courts of Bangladesh have spoken with a clarity that resonates across the nation and beyond," he said. "The conviction and sentencing affirm a fundamental principle: no one, regardless of power, is above the law."
UN Human Rights Spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani called the verdicts "an important moment for victims of the grave violations committed during the suppression of protests last year."
However, Shamdasani added that "we also regret the imposition of the death penalty, which we oppose in all circumstances."
Human Rights Watch deputy Asia director Meenakshi Ganguly wrote on X that "Bangladesh should ensure a credible justice system" and "abolish capital punishment."
India's Ministry of External Affairs declined to say whether it would honor Bangladesh's request to extradite Hasina and Khan.
"As a close neighbor, India remains committed to the best interests of people of Bangladesh, including in peace, democracy, inclusion, and stability in that country," the ministry ambiguously stated. "We will always engage constructively with all stakeholders to that end."
Experts say extradition is highly unlikely.
The days leading up to the verdicts saw widespread protests and unrest, including dozens of arson and crude bomb attacks resulting in the deaths of two people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular