April, 20 2015, 09:30am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Dustin Cranor, 202.341.2267, 954.348.1314 (cell) or dcranor@oceana.org
Five Year Anniversary of BP Oil Disaster Highlights Risks of Expanding Offshore Drilling into New Areas
WASHINGTON
Today marks the five-year anniversary of the worst environmental disaster in United States history. The BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster claimed the lives of 11 workers and spilled more than 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, wreaking havoc on communities, economies, fisheries and wildlife.
Since the spill, numerous studies have found that the oil, and the dispersants used to clean it up, has had detrimental effects on birds, dolphins, fish and other species.
Jacqueline Savitz, Oceana's vice president for the U.S., marked the occasion with the following statement:
"It has been five years since the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, yet offshore drilling is still not safe. Offshore drilling continues to plague the Gulf with deaths, injuries, explosions and spills.
We are only now beginning to understand the true effects of the BP oil disaster. We have seen sea turtles wash up on our beaches. We know that the oil has damaged the hearts of fish like the valuable Bluefin tuna and caused illnesses in dolphins. Many of these impacts equaled death for these animals, which may lead to effects on populations that were already struggling from overfishing. While the jury is literally still out on the full extent of the impacts, we do know that BP has not yet come close to making Americans whole and recovering the Gulf to its pre-spill conditions.
Today's anniversary is a stark reminder that when we drill, we spill. Yet Congress has not passed a single piece of legislation to better regulate this dirty and dangerous industry. The myth that more energy produced at home means lower gas prices is simply untrue - oil is sold on the world market, and the majority of what we produce at home is shipped overseas.
Instead, we have seen a constant push to expand our drilling efforts. In fact, the Obama administration is currently considering opening up the East Coast to offshore drilling for the first time in U.S. history. The federal government is also planning to authorize new drilling in the U.S. Arctic Ocean, the worst possible place we could allow drilling given its remoteness, extended darkness and icy conditions. There is no good reason to sell more leases in the Arctic Ocean, where companies such as Shell have proven so clearly that drilling can't be done safely.
Drilling in the Atlantic could destroy coastal communities, economies, fish and marine mammals for decades to come. It would lead to a coastline scattered with oil and gas rigs, and industrialization in coastal communities. Commercial fishing, tourism and recreation would suffer from routine leaks as well as the looming risk of a Deepwater Horizon-like oil disaster along the East Coast.
Even the exploration itself is extremely dangerous. The Obama administration is currently reviewing applications to use seismic airguns that use repeated dynamite-like blasts to search for oil and gas deposits deep below the ocean floor. This is being permitted in an area twice the size of California, stretching from Delaware to Florida, in some cases in areas not even being considered for offshore drilling. Based on the government's own estimates, seismic blasting in the Atlantic could harm fish populations while injuring as many as 138,000 marine mammals like whales and dolphins, killing some of them, and disturbing the vital activities of as many as 13.5 million more. To date, 50 coastal communities have passed resolutions opposing offshore drilling and seismic testing. In addition, 65 Members of Congress, over 400 elected officials, over 160 conservation and animal welfare organizations, as well as the Billfish Foundation, the International Game Fish Association, the Southeastern Fisheries Association and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, have all publically opposed offshore oil exploration and/or development."
In March, 75 leading marine scientists sent a letter to President Obama detailing the impacts of seismic airgun blasting in the Atlantic Ocean, stating that "the magnitude of the proposed seismic activity is likely to have significant, long-lasting, and widespread impacts on the reproduction and survival of fish and marine mammal populations in the region, including the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale, of which approximately only 500 remain.
Oceana's own analysis finds that offshore wind would produce twice the number of jobs and twice the amount of energy as offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean, without the risk of a catastrophic spill.
Oceana is the largest international ocean conservation and advocacy organization. Oceana works to protect and restore the world's oceans through targeted policy campaigns.
LATEST NEWS
Dems Decry GOP's $15 Billion Rural Hospital Fund as Sick Joke Compared to $800 Billion in Medicaid Cuts
Instead of offering a "disaster fund" for rural hospitals that would lose crucial funding due to Medicaid cuts, one Democratic senator said Republicans should not "create the problem in the first place."
Jun 26, 2025
"That ought to do it."
That was Democratic Senator Ron Wyden's sardonic response Wednesday to a new proposal put forward by Senate Finance Committee Republicans whose proposed solution to the devastating impacts of the $800 billion in Medicaid cuts they want to impose is a so-called $15 billion "stabilization fund" for rural hospitals that rely on Medicaid to operate.
Wyden was among several Democrats who appeared fed up this week with Republicans' attempts to paper over the devastation hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid cuts would cause in communities across the United States.
While several Republicans in the House have acknowledged that cutting Medicaid to help fund tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans would harm "vulnerable constituents"—echoing warnings that Democrats and progressive advocates have been shouting for months—Senate GOP lawmakers have also evidently looked at the party's budget reconciliation bill and its Medicaid provider tax decrease, which would slash state funding for Medicaid, and come to terms with the suffering the proposal would inflict on their own voters.
"The devastation to healthcare in the United States will be red and blue," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told the news outlet NOTUS. "Red, white, and blue, across the country, and I think they're hearing from constituents."
According to a report released last week by the AFL-CIO, with states losing Medicaid funding from the provider tax decrease, more than 330 rural hospitals are expected to go out of business if the Republicans manage to pass the reconciliation bill as written.
"This is literal life-and-death for folks who will have to travel even farther to access the healthcare they need," said Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive think tank and advocacy group.
Democrats suggested the apparent panic created by public outrage over the proposed cuts led Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee to circulate a memo Wednesday proposing a $15 billion fund for rural hospitals—but not facilities in urban areas, which also serve many Medicaid recipients but lie in largely Democratic areas.
About half the money in the fund would be made available for rural hospitals across the country and the other half would go to specific hospitals chosen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a Republican senator toldThe Hill.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) denounced the proposal as "a slush fund" that exemplified "the corruption" behind the GOP's megabill.
Republicans including Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) have proposed a larger $100 billion fund for hospitals—a number Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) scoffed at Wednesday—but Democrats were quick to point out that a bigger fund wouldn't reverse the impact of $800 billion in Medicaid cuts.
"The rural hospital fund is a fig leaf that will let them pretend that they can take away hundreds of billions of dollars in healthcare reimbursements," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told NOTUS.
Several Democrats and advocates said Republicans were desperately "trying to solve a problem they're creating" by slashing a healthcare program used by more than 71 million Americans.
"The obvious question is, don't create the problem in the first place," Wyden told NOTUS. "Don't create the need for things like disaster funds."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Victory for Working People': Judge Blocks Trump Attack on Public Employee Unions
"We applaud this ruling as a critical defense of our communities and our rights at work," said the head of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.
Jun 26, 2025
A federal judge on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from ending collective bargaining rights for federal employees whose work the administration says includes national security aspects. The union plaintiffs in the case hailed the decision as a "victory for working people."
"This executive order is a direct effort to silence federal workers' voice on the job—an essential freedom that helps maintain the integrity of our democracy," wrote Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, one of the unions that brought the lawsuit.
"Federal workers serve every community, and targeting them through political retribution threatens the freedom of all working people to fight for fair treatment. We applaud this ruling as a critical defense of our communities and our rights at work," Saunders said.
On March 27, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order with the aim of terminating collective bargaining with federal labor unions across many federal agencies, including the U.S. State Department, the Department of Justice, the Federal Communications Commission, and the General Services Administration. These agencies, according to the executive order, are "determined to have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work."
Under federal law, the president is authorized to exclude agencies and subdivisions of agencies if those are the agency's primary function.
In an accompanying fact sheet, the White House called out "certain federal unions" which have "declared war on President Trump's agenda."
According to the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the executive order impacts nearly a million federal employees.
In April, six unions that represent federal workers, including AFGE, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, arguing that that the executive order unconstitutionally retaliates against the union plaintiffs for their activities opposing Trump, which they argue is protected First Amendment activity.
In their complaint, the unions said that the Trump administration erred when it applied the national security exemption to workers whose jobs are not related to national security.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge James Donato highlighted the White House fact sheet published alongside the order: "The fact sheet called out federal unions for vocal opposition to President Trump's agenda. It condemned unions who criticized the president and expressed support only for unions who toed the line. It mandated the dissolution of long-standing collective bargaining rights and other workplace protections for federal unions deemed oppositional to the president."
"All of this is solid evidence of a tie between the exercise of First Amendment rights and a government sanction," he wrote.
Donato also noted Trump "applied the national security label to an unprecedented swath of federal agencies, including whole cabinet departments for the first time in history."
David J. Holway, national president of National Association of Government Employees, another plaintiff, said that "this executive order isn't about national security. President Trump is punishing NAGE and other unions for protecting the rights of workers and standing up to the administration’s unlawful actions. The court made it clear: national security cannot be used as a smokescreen to silence federal workers. No president is above the law."
According to CNN, the judge's decision on Tuesday clashes with a ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in May lifted a different judge's block on the same executive order, in a case brought by a separate union.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'People Will Die,' Warn Progressives as Supreme Court Lets States Defund Planned Parenthood
"This is a systematic decimation of access to reproductive healthcare and a signifier of what else is likely to come," warned one critic.
Jun 26, 2025
In its latest blow to reproductive healthcare in the United States, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority on Thursday blocked Planned Parenthood and one of its patients from suing South Carolina over its defunding of the medical provider because it performs abortions—a decision that critics say will cost lives as more Republican-controlled states follow suit.
At question in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic was whether Medicaid beneficiaries can sue in order to secure healthcare services under a law that allows patients to choose any qualified provider. The high court ruled 6-3 that they cannot, with liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
"The decision whether to let private plaintiffs enforce a new statutory right poses delicate questions of public policy. New rights for some mean new duties for others," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. "And private enforcement actions, meritorious or not, can force governments to direct money away from public services and spend it instead on litigation."
"The job of resolving how best to weigh those competing costs and benefits belongs to the people's elected representatives, not
unelected judges charged with applying the law as they find it," Gorsuch added.
Concurring with the majority, far-right Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the ruling invites further scrutiny of Section 1983, the federal law empowering individuals to sue state and local government officials for violating their constitutional rights.
And, predictably, in Medina, Justice Thomas isn't content to axe Planned Parenthood from Medicaid. He would go further ... "to reexamine more broadly this Court’s §1983 jurisprudence . . . ."This is an invitation to undermine a major foundation of civil rights litigation.
[image or embed]
— Melissa Murray (@profmmurray.bsky.social) June 26, 2025 at 7:17 AM
In a furious dissent, Jackson wrote that "the court's decision today is not the first to so weaken the landmark civil rights protections that Congress enacted during the Reconstruction era."
"That means we do have a sense of what comes next: As with those past rulings, today's decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people," she continued. "At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them."
"And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians—and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country—of a deeply personal freedom: the 'ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable,'" Jackson added. "The court today disregards Congress' express desire to prevent that very outcome."
More than 70 million Americans rely upon Medicaid, the federal government's primary health insurance program for lower-income people. The program is facing the prospect of major cuts under a Republican budget proposal that critics warn could cause millions of people to lose their healthcare coverage in service to a massive tax break backed by President Donald Trump that would disproportionately benefit the rich and corporations.
According to Planned Parenthood Federation of America president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson, "currently, 20% of South Carolinians—over 1 million—receive healthcare services through the Medicaid program, and approximately 5% of those recipients sought sexual and reproductive health care services at Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (PPSAT) so far this year."
Responding to Thursday's ruling, McGill Johnson said that "the consequences are not theoretical in South Carolina or other states with hostile legislatures."
"Patients need access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and more. And right now, lawmakers in Congress are trying to 'defund' Planned Parenthood as part of their long-term goal to shut down Planned Parenthood and ban abortion nationwide," she added. "Make no mistake, the attacks are ongoing and Planned Parenthood will continue to do everything possible to show up in communities across the country and provide care."
Under tremendous Republican-led pressure, Planned Parenthood has closed or announced plans to close at least 20 locations across seven states since the beginning of the year.
"Today's decision is a grave injustice that strikes at the very bedrock of American freedom and promises to send South Carolina deeper into a healthcare crisis," PPSAT president and CEO Paige Johnson said following Thursday's decision. "Twice, justices of this court denied to even hear this case because [South Carolina Gov. Henry] McMaster's intent is clear: weaponize anti-abortion sentiment to deprive communities with low incomes of basic healthcare."
"Planned Parenthood South Atlantic will continue to operate and offer care in South Carolina, including for people enrolled in Medicaid," Johnson added. "To our patients, we will do everything in our power to ensure you can get the care you need at low or no cost to you. Know that we are still here for you, and we will never stop fighting for you to reclaim the rights and dignity you deserve."
Destiny Lopez, co-president and CEO of the Guttmacher Institute, called the ruling "a grave injustice."
Lopez continued:
At a time when healthcare is already costly and difficult to access, stripping patients of their right to high-quality, affordable healthcare at the provider of their choosing is a dangerous violation of bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom.
Specifically targeting Planned Parenthood has long been a strategy of the anti-abortion movement. Planned Parenthood health centers are an irreplaceable part of the U.S. healthcare system; Guttmacher data show that among the 4.7 million contraceptive patients served by publicly supported clinics in 2020, one in three received care from Planned Parenthood.
"In the face of attempts to 'defund' Planned Parenthood and attack Medicaid, Title X, and other pillars of reproductive healthcare, the court's actions cannot be considered in a vacuum," Lopez asserted. "This is a systematic decimation of access to reproductive healthcare and a signifier of what else is likely to come. Everyone deserves choice in their healthcare provider and access to the family planning they need."
Progressive groups and individuals also condemned Thursday's ruling, with the Freedom From Religion Foundation lamenting that "Christian nationalists win, women and low-income patients lose."
"This isn't justice," FFRF added. "It's religious favoritism at the highest level."
Planned Parenthood provides affordable:➡ Cancer screening➡ STD testing and treatment➡ Prenatal supportToday's decision from SCOTUS to allow SC to remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid means that people will be sicker and people will die.www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...
[image or embed]
— Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (@jayapal.house.gov) June 26, 2025 at 7:34 AM
Meagan Hatcher-Mays, senior adviser at United for Democracy, said in a statement that "millions of Medicaid patients across the country rely on Planned Parenthood health centers for their primary and reproductive care, and people who face systemic racism and discrimination—Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities, as well as LGBTQ+ people and women—are more likely to be covered by Medicaid."
"It's ironic that the MAGA justices issued this ruling today, almost three years to the day that they overturned Roe v. Wade and threw abortion access into chaos across the country," Hatcher-Mays added. "Today's ruling is a further attack on healthcare, bodily autonomy, and our freedoms. This ruling clearly harms communities in South Carolina, and it's a matter of time before we see that harm expand further into the country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular