June, 25 2015, 01:00pm EDT

U.S. Supreme Court Preserves Affordable Care Act; Ensures Critical Health Benefits for Millions
WASHINGTON
The U.S. Supreme Court today issued a significant decision protecting affordable, quality health care benefits for millions across the U.S. under the Affordable Care Act.
The Court's decision in King v. Burwell preserves the Affordable Care Act's federal tax credits for individuals who need assistance affording mandatory coverage through Health Insurance Marketplaces established by the federal government in the 34 states that have refused to establish state-run Marketplaces. Today's ruling safeguards those tax credits for individuals obtaining health coverage through these federally-run Marketplaces, in addition to the 16 state-run consumer Marketplaces.
According to the Court, "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them."
Said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:
"The nation's highest court has once again recognized the plain truth that affordable access to health care represents an immense benefit to millions of Americans, especially women and their families.
"Today's ruling ensures that women will keep preventive health coverage made possible through the Affordable Care Act, including an affordable contraception benefit that empowers women to plan their families, prevents unintended pregnancy, and saves billions in health care costs every year.
"It should send a strong message to those seeking to undermine this historic expansion of health care benefits that the Affordable Care Act is here to stay."
The Center for Reproductive Rights is one of 68 organizations that signed on to an amicus brief in the King v. Burwell case, submitted by the National Women's Law Center, which argued that the tax credits are critical to ensuring millions of women maintain their affordable health care benefits.
The Affordable Care Act--which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 --vastly expanded women's access to preventive health care without copayments, including contraception, cancer screenings, HIV and STI testing, well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, and prenatal and post-partum care and counseling.
Ninety-nine percent of all sexually active women in the U.S. use birth control at some point during their reproductive years. The Affordable Care Act's expanded coverage for contraception vastly increases the accessibility of birth control for women who need it, especially those interested in using long-acting reversible contraception like IUDs, which often had a high upfront cost and co-pay. Unfortunately, that important expansion of coverage was undercut by the Supreme Court's June 2014 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which allowed some private companies to limit their employees' birth control coverage under the ACA's preventive health provision based on the religious opinions of corporate owners.
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) 637-3600LATEST NEWS
Israel Becomes First Nation to Recognize Somaliland—But Still Rejects Palestine
One foreign policy analyst said that Israel views Somaliland as a "strategic location as a launch pad for strikes on Yemen and potentially a place to forcibly 'relocate' Palestinians to."
Dec 26, 2025
Israel became the first nation to recognize Somaliland as a sovereign state on Friday, a move that was met with criticism from international observers who questioned its continued unwillingness to recognize a Palestinian state.
Somaliland, a breakaway region in the north of Somalia that is home to more than 6 million people, declared independence in 1991, but until now, no United Nations member states have recognized its claim.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described his government's recognition of the territory as being “in the spirit of the Abraham Accords,” a deal brokered by US President Donald Trump for Israel to normalize relations with some of its Arab neighbors, which has itself been accused of disregarding the issue of Palestinian sovereignty.
Speaking over a video call with Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi, the president of Somaliland, Netanyahu said he was signing "Israel's official recognition of Somaliland and its right of self-determination," calling the friendship between the two nations "seminal and historic."
In a statement, Abdullahi said Israel's recognition "represents a milestone in Somaliland's long-standing pursuit of international legitimacy, reaffirming its historical, legal, and moral entitlement to statehood."
However, a report from the Guardian suggested that Israel's recognition of Somaliland has less to do with the self-determination of its people than with Israel's military interests. It cited a November report from a prominent Israeli think tank, which argued that Somaliland could be used as a base of military operations against Yemen's Houthis.
Somaliland, located in the horn of Africa just south of the Arabian Peninsula, already hosts an air base that the United Arab Emirates has used to conduct operations against the Yemeni militant group, which—until a "ceasefire" agreement was reached in October—launched regular attacks on Israel and its vessels in the Red Sea in what it said was an effort to pressure it to stop its genocidal military campaign in Gaza.
Egypt and Turkey condemned Israel's agreement with Somaliland, saying, "This initiative by Israel, which aligns with its expansionist policy and its efforts to do everything to prevent the recognition of a Palestinian state, constitutes overt interference in Somalia’s domestic affairs.”
Foreign ministers for the two nations joined those of Somalia and neighboring Djibouti on a call following the development, where they called for the continued unity of Somalia as an institution and condemned Israel's efforts "to displace the Palestinian people from their land."
Adil Haque, a professor at Rutgers Law School, pointed out on social media that, in August, Netanyahu met with Somaliland's leadership "offering recognition in exchange for helping Israel to illegally deport Palestinians from Gaza."
Somaliland was one of many nations reportedly approached by Israel to warehouse Palestinians exiled from the strip permanently—others included Indonesia, Uganda, South Sudan, and Libya.
Following reports at the time that Somalia was also in consideration, its president, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, responded that "the idea of removing Palestine from their own land and putting them into another, other people’s land—I don’t see that that’s a solution at all."
A senior Israeli official who spoke on condition of anonymity with Israel's Channel 12 reportedly agreed that Netanyahu's recognition of Somaliland undermines his repeated assertions that there will never be a Palestinian state. As the Times of Israel summarized: "The official... points out that while Israel is the first country to grant recognition to Somaliland, the rest of the world considers the breakaway region an integral part of Somalia."
Tariq Kenney-Shawa, a fellow at the Palestinian Policy Network and a producer at AJ+, said: "To state the obvious, Israel wouldn’t recognize anyone unless there was something in it for them. Israel doesn’t give a shit about Somaliland apart from its strategic location as a launch pad for strikes on Yemen and potentially a place to forcibly 'relocate' Palestinians to."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Horrible Racist' Stephen Miller Slammed for Using Classic TV Christmas Special to Bash Immigrants
"Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra would hate Stephen Miller and his politics," said one critic in response to Miller.
Dec 26, 2025
Top Trump White House aide Stephen Miller on Friday elicited disgust after he said that a beloved Christmas television special reminded him of his own personal animus toward immigrants.
Miller, often seen as the architect of President Donald Trump's mass deportation policy, revealed in a post on X that he and his children had just watched "Christmas with The Martins and The Sinatras," a one-off 1967 TV holiday special that featured singers Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra.
Miller then quickly pivoted from that to once again bash immigrants who come to the US.
"Imagine watching that," Miller wrote, "and thinking America needed infinity migrants from the third world."
As Rolling Stone politics reporter Nikki McCann Ramírez pointed out in response, both Martin and Sinatra both had parents who were first-generation Italian immigrants.
"Dean Martin was born Dino Paul Crocetti and gave himself a stage name because of braindead xenophobes like Stephen," McCann Ramírez observed. "Sinatra was also a child of Italian immigrants. Imagine watching them and thinking immigrants didn’t build the culture you fetishize today."
A similar point was made by civil rights attorney Sherrilyn Ifill in a post on Bluesky.
"Imagine watching Sinatra, son of Dolly and Antonini born in Genoa and Sicily, respectively," she wrote, "and Martin, son of Gaetano and Angela, born in Montesilvano, Italy and Ohio respectively... and crusading against the value of children of immigrants to the US."
Journalist and author Jeff Yang added some historical context to Miller's remarks by noting that Italian immigrants in the early and middle decades of the 20th century faced many of the same stereotypes that Miller and his political allies ascribe to immigrants from Latin America.
"A reminder," Yang wrote, while also posting old cartoons that featured racist depictions of Italians, "that Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra’s parents emigrated here during a period when Italians were considered to be a genetically inferior and criminal-minded underclass that Stephen Miller’s racist predecessors said should be excluded from America."
Yang added that Frank Sinatra's mother "ran an underground free abortion clinic, chained herself to a fence to fight for women’s suffrage, and was an extremely influential organizer for the Democratic Party."
Princeton University historian Kevin Kruse promoted Yang's thread that demonstrated Miller's apparent ignorance of Dean and Sinatra's family histories, and said it showed the Trump adviser is "a horrible racist in the sense that he is actually not that good at being racist."
Tim Wise, a senior fellow at the African American Policy Forum, managed to find an upside to Miller's holiday-themed anti-immigrant rant.
"The one silver lining in all this sickness is that one day your children will despise you as much as most of America already does," he commented.
Film producer Franklin Leonard was even more succinct in his response to Miller.
"Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra would hate Stephen Miller and his politics," he wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's 'Bomb Magnet' Fleet Could 'Never Sail' and Waste Billions of Dollars: Experts
"A future administration will cancel the program before the first ship hits the water," said one critic.
Dec 26, 2025
President Donald Trump on Monday announced that the US Navy is building a new class of warship that will be named after him—but naval warfare experts are warning the project looks like a wasteful boondoggle.
Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote an analysis of the Trump-branded ships the day after their announcement in which he bluntly predicted that they "will never sail."
Among other things, Cancian argued that the ship being commissioned by the president "will take years to design, cost $9 billion each to build, and contravene the Navy’s new concept of operations, which envisions distributed firepower."
As if that weren't enough, Cancian projected that "a future administration will cancel the program before the first ship hits the water."
Dan Grazier, a senior fellow and program director at the Stimson Center, also predicted doom for Trump's prized ships, which he said would be too overloaded with the latest cutting-edge technology to be effective at naval combat.
"Every gadget you add to one of these systems is one more thing that can break," Grazier wrote in an analysis published by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. "When designers lack discipline, as they obviously did while sketching out this latest future boondoggle, a simple mathematical truth asserts itself."
In fact, Grazier felt so confident in his gloomy prognostication for Trump's warships that he told readers they could "take it to the bank."
"The Navy will spend tens of billions of dollars over the course of the next decade on the Trump-class program," he wrote. "At best, the Navy will receive three troublesome ships that will cost more than $10 billion each before then entire scheme is abandoned."
William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, flagged a particularly troubling detail of Trump's warship plan in a lengthy analysis published by Forbes on Thursday.
"The most troubling aspect of the proposed Trump-class ships is that they are supposed to carry sea-launched nuclear armed cruise missiles," Hartung explained. "The last thing the US military needs is yet another way to deliver nuclear weapons. And because nuclear-armed cruise missiles are difficult to tell from cruise missiles armed with nonnuclear bombs, there is a danger that and adversary could mistake an attack with a nonnuclear armed missile with a nuclear attack, with devastating consequences."
Hartung also pointed out that the ships, which are projected to cost billions each, are not the only pricey weapons system that Trump is planning to build, as earlier this year he vowed to build a "Golden Dome" missile defense system that is projected to cost anywhere from $292 billion and $3.6 trillion.
"It’s time for Congress to do its oversight job and slow down these 'golden' programs until the administration can make a plausible case that they can be both affordable and effective," Hartung concluded. "The odds are against them."
Bernard Loo, senior fellow at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said in an interview with CNBC that Trump's proposed ships appear to be "a prestige project more than anything else."
Loo argued that the proposed ships' massive size, with each projected to displace more than 35,000 tons while measuring more than 840 feet, would make each vessel a "bomb magnet" for adversaries.
"The size and the prestige value of it all make it an even more tempting target," Loo added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


