

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.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld some of the most harmful provisions of Texas' far-reaching and extreme clinic shutdown law, putting most abortion clinics in the state at risk of closure.
Today's decision allows the state's requirement that every reproductive health care facility offering abortion services meet the same hospital-like building standards as an ambulatory surgical center (ASC) to go into effect in twenty two days for nearly all clinics in the state--a measure that amounts to a multi-million dollar tax on abortion services and would close most abortion providers in the state. While the court partially enjoined the ASC requirement as applied to the last clinic in the Rio Grande Valley, its injunction is so narrow that it may be of little practical benefit to the clinic or the women it serves.
The ruling also reverses the lower court's injunction blocking the state's admitting privileges requirement except as applied to a single doctor. This provision has already forced approximately half the state's abortion clinics to close their doors.
The court said that women in El Paso--who will face a round-trip of over a thousand miles to obtain an abortion in Texas--could travel to New Mexico to access their constitutional right to safe and legal abortion, where there are no ASC or admitting privileges requirements
The Center for Reproductive Rights and the Texas women's health care providers today announced their plans to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:
"Not since before Roe v. Wade has a law or court decision had the potential to devastate access to reproductive health care on such a sweeping scale.
"Once again, women across the state of Texas face elimination of safe and legal options for ending a pregnancy, and the denial of their constitutional rights.
"The Supreme Court's prior rulings do not allow for this kind of broadside legislative assault on women's rights and health care. We now look to the Justices to stop the sham laws that are shutting clinics down and placing countless women at risk of serious harm."
Said Amy Hagstrom Miller, Founder, President and CEO of Whole Woman's Health:
"With this ruling today, the justice system and our elected politicians put a road full of unnecessary hurdles in front of every woman in Texas who has decided to end her pregnancy. For scores of Texas women, the repercussions of this ruling will be devastating. Ending a pregnancy could mean travelling hundreds of miles and overcoming needless hurdles such as additional costs, childcare, time off, and immigration checkpoints. This is simply unacceptable. Whole Woman's Health will fight this fight and take our case all the way to the Supreme Court in order to get justice for all Texans."
Today's decision comes eight months after the Fifth Circuit allowed the ASC requirement to immediately take effect by staying a lower court's injunction of the law. It had previously allowed the admitting-privileges requirement to take effect. For 12 days, all but seven reproductive health care facilities in the state were prevented from offering safe and legal abortion services--until October 14, 2014, when the United State Supreme Court responded to an emergency application by Texas health care providers and reinstated the injunction, allowing many of the previously closed clinics to reopen their doors.
This is the Center for Reproductive Rights' second challenge to Texas' House Bill 2 (HB2), a sweeping package of anti-choice legislation that was passed in 2013. The first suit--filed in September 2013--challenged the law's unconstitutional admitting privileges requirement statewide and the law's outdated restrictions on medication abortion. These provisions were ultimately upheld by an appellate court panel and refused a rehearing by the entire Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Major medical groups oppose the types of restrictions found in Texas' clinic shutdown law. The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recently submitted a joint amicus brief opposing the law, stating that "H.B. 2 does not serve the health of women in Texas but instead jeopardizes women's health by restricting access to abortion providers." Medical experts confirm that legal abortion care in the U.S. is extremely safe, with less than 1 percent of patients requiring care in an emergency room.
The clinics and physicians in this challenge are represented by Stephanie Toti and David Brown of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a team of attorneys from the law firm Morrison & Foerster led by J. Alexander Lawrence, and Austin attorneys Jan Soifer and Patrick O'Connell of the law firm O'Connell & Soifer
Harmful and unconstitutional restrictions like these further underscore the need for the federal Women's Health Protection Act (S. 217/HR. 448)--a bill that would prohibit states like Texas from imposing unconstitutional restrictions on reproductive health care providers that apply to no similar medical care, interfere with women's personal decision making, and block access to safe and legal abortion services. Elected officials in Austin and Houston have called for the repeal of HB2 and the passage of the Women's Health Protection Act.
The Center for Reproductive Rights is a global human rights organization of lawyers and advocates who ensure reproductive rights are protected in law as fundamental human rights for the dignity, equality, health, and well-being of every person.
(917) 637-3600One Olympic athlete, a skier representing Britain, registered his disgust with US immigration enforcement agents by urinating the message "Fuck ICE" in the snow.
Hundreds of protesters gathered in the streets of Milan, Italy on Friday to protest the presence of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at the 2026 Winter Olympics, with protesters waving "FCK ICE" signs and condemning Trump administration officials—including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Reuters reported that demonstrators rallying ahead of the opening ceremony could be heard "blowing plastic whistles, which have become a symbol of anti-ICE rallies in the US." The Trump administration said a small group of ICE officers would be traveling to Milan to help provide security for Vance and Rubio, who arrived in the city on Thursday.
One demonstrator, a Minnesotan currently studying in Europe, told the outlet that she "thought that this was a good opportunity to show that the rest of the world is not okay with what's happening in Minnesota."
"It's not okay to just acquiesce and go with the status quo," the protester said.

The protests came a day after Gus Kenworthy, a skier representing Britain, urinated the message "Fuck ICE" in the snow ahead of the winter games' opening festivities and urged Americans to pressure their representatives to rein in the agency.
"Innocent people have been murdered, and enough is enough," Kenworthy wrote on social media. "We can’t wait around while ICE continues to operate with unchecked power."
"If you take away our democratic stability, we will take away the economic stability."
A centrist Democratic US senator is now talking about taking drastic measures to protect democracy from President Donald Trump.
Speaking with the Court of History podcast on Thursday, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) outlined a plan to stop Trump in case he tries to follow through on his threat to "nationalize the vote" ahead of the 2026 midterm elections or if he tried to enact ally Steve Bannon's proposal to "surround the polls" with US Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) agents.
"We have to prepare for the outmost scenario, the worst scenario," said Gallego, "which is they try to either capture the ballot box as ballots are being counted, they try to stop the count, they try to surround polling places, whatever it is."
Getting more specific, Gallego said that something like a general strike along the lines of the one that took place in Minneapolis last month to protest ICE deployment in the city would be justified.
"We need to make sure that we have an ultimate response to that which, I believe, has to be a true national strike," he said, "in the sense that, if they do this, if they try to overthrow our democracy, if you are allied with democracy, do not go to work. If you’re a pilot, do not show up. If you drive a train, do not show up. If you’re a teacher, do not show up. We grind the country to a halt."
Gallego acknowledged the damage that this would do to the US economy, but said that "if we have to destroy the stock market to save democracy, we need to accept that."
He also said such an action would send an unmistakeable message to the billionaires who have given Trump their full-throated backing during his second term.
"The richest and the most powerful people in the world and in this country need to understand that that is a real possibility," he emphasized. "There is no economic stability without democratic stability. If you take away our democratic stability, we will take away the economic stability."
Gallego isn't alone in saying that concrete steps may have to be taken to protect US democracy from the president this year.
Elections expert Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, said in an interview published by the New Republic on Friday that both state and city governments, as well as individual citizens, may be needed to ensure the integrity of the 2026 midterms.
"I think states and local governments need to be prepared for this," he said. "I would suggest trying to get injunctions against the federal government to keep them away. I would suggest that lawyers for voting rights groups and Democrats be prepared to go to court."
Failing that, he said that citizens must be prepared to get involved on the ground.
"I mean, it may take people in the streets protecting the offices where ballots are being tabulated," he said. "To take the Brooks Brothers riot—from the 2000 disputed election where some people were trying to storm an office where they were recounting ballots in Bush v. Gore—that would look very tame compared to what, you know, we might see in 2026."
"Trump has dressed up yet another corporate giveaway as a boon to patients," said one watchdog. "Real drug price reform doesn’t look like a website."
US President Donald Trump on Thursday launched a website, branded with his name, in a purported effort to help patients buy prescription drugs at lower prices.
But experts, watchdog groups, and Democratic lawmakers said TrumpRx will likely do little for consumers—or for the broader goal of bringing down exorbitant medicine costs—while further enriching Big Pharma and potentially lining the pockets of his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr.
TrumpRx.gov, launched in partnership with pharmaceutical giants, points users to direct-to-patient sales platforms hosted by drug companies to facilitate the purchase of an extremely limited selection of medications. For example, TrumpRx's listing for Farxiga links users to AstraZeneca Direct, where patients can pay out of pocket for the type 2 diabetes medication.
Donald Trump Jr. is on the board of BlinkRx, a prescription drug platform that stands to benefit from the Trump administration's promotion of direct-to-patient medicine sales. In December, the president's son reportedly met with top drug company executives and administration officials responsible for regulating the pharmaceutical industry—a gathering hosted by BlinkRx.
Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement Thursday that TrumpRx "not only threatens patients’ health, safety, and privacy, but also likely includes kickback schemes designed to enrich President Trump, his family, and their friends."
"TrumpRx has been shrouded in secrecy from the beginning because the administration clearly does not want anyone to know it likely won’t save patients money," said Pallone. "However, we do know Trump only slaps his name on things when there’s something in it for him."
Last week, a group of Democratic senators sent a letter to the inspector general of the US Department of Health and Human Services warning that "without stricter safeguards before its official launch, TrumpRx could be used as a potential vehicle for unlawful kickback schemes that result in excessive costs for the federal government."
In addition to sending users to direct-to-patient sales sites, TrumpRx offers Trump-branded coupons for some medications. To obtain a coupon, site users must accept terms that state: "You agree that by redeeming this coupon, you (and anyone else acting on your behalf) agree not to seek reimbursement from any insurance plan for out-of-pocket costs for prescriptions purchased with this coupon. You also agree not to count the cost of prescriptions toward your deductible or true out-of-pocket costs."
The Washington Post reported that pharmaceutical companies "have agreed to list their drugs on TrumpRx.gov."
"TrumpRx is designed to help Big Pharma keep its prices high by diluting the bargaining power of insurance companies, weakening an important check on pharma."
Experts warned that patients who use TrumpRx could end up paying more for their medications than if they pursued other available options.
"TrumpRx’s offerings are very limited, fewer than 50 drugs listed, and most are niche products used by few patients," Rena Conti, an associate professor at Boston University, told ABC News. "Many are available in generic form at even lower prices or already available to consumers at low or even very low prices elsewhere. This suggests it pays for consumers to check their insurance coverage and ask their regular doctor or pharmacist before they use this service."
Peter Maybarduk, access to medicines director at Public Citizen, offered a more scathing assessment of TrumpRx, saying the president has "dressed up yet another corporate giveaway as a boon to patients."
"Most patients will do better through their insurance than through TrumpRx. Many patients without insurance will not be able to afford drugmakers’ still-high prices funneled through TrumpRx," said Maybarduk. "But drugmakers certainly will appreciate TrumpRx’s free promotion of their products, delivered with a false veneer of price accountability. TrumpRx is designed to help Big Pharma keep its prices high by diluting the bargaining power of insurance companies, weakening an important check on pharma."
“TrumpRx also appears to be another example of this president’s repeated corruption," he continued. "Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., sits on the board of BlinkRx, a key business that may benefit financially from TrumpRx. Getting serious about medicine affordability means getting serious about challenging Big Pharma. For all Trump’s talk, Big Pharma is getting a lot of special favors from this White House, while patients still are waiting. Real drug price reform doesn’t look like a website."
Throughout his second White House term, Trump has made outlandish promises to cut drug costs and hosted top executives at the White House to tout splashy deals—only for pharmaceutical giants to continue jacking up prices. Reuters reported last month that drugmakers planned to "raise US prices on at least 350 branded medications, including vaccines against Covid, RSV, and shingles and blockbuster cancer treatment Ibrance" in 2026.
Merith Basey, CEO of Patients for Affordable Drugs Now, said in a statement that the Trump administration's "voluntary agreements" with drug companies "lack clear enforcement mechanisms and still put the power to set and increase prices firmly in the hands of pharmaceutical corporations."
"Patients in our community will soon learn if they can reliably access these discounts at the pharmacy counter, where the program will ultimately be tested and where affordability matters most," Basey said of TrumpRx.