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
November, 24 2015, 07:30am EDT
Contact:
Crystal Cooper, ACLU national, 212-519-7894, ccooper@aclu.org
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 212-261-4433
Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Abortion Restrictions in Wisconsin
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit today rejected Wisconsin's efforts to reinstate an unconstitutional restriction on access to abortion. This comes just over a week after the U.S.
MADISON
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit today rejected Wisconsin's efforts to reinstate an unconstitutional restriction on access to abortion. This comes just over a week after the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will review a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding similar restrictions in Texas that have devastated access to safe, legal abortion across the state.
Today's decision affirmed U.S. District Court Judge William Conley's decision that the admitting privileges law would place an undue burden on women's access to safe and legal abortion. The court wrote in today's opinion, "...what makes no sense is to abridge the constitutional right to an abortion on the basis of spurious contentions regarding women's health--and the abridgment challenged in this case would actually endanger women's health." The order continues, "Opponents of abortion reveal their true objectives when they procure legislation limited to a medical procedure--abortion--that rarely produces a medical emergency."
Only four health centers provide abortion in Wisconsin. If this law were permitted to take effect, one of those health centers will be forced to close immediately, and the remaining three will not be able to absorb the unmet need. This could delay procedures by up to 10 weeks, forcing abortions later in pregnancy, if a woman is able to have one at all.
In Texas, researchers found that up to 240,000 Texas women may have attempted to end a pregnancy on their own, without medical assistance, due to restricted access to safe, legal abortion. Additional research in Texas revealed that existing abortion restrictions have delayed procedures for women by up to 20 days, and threaten to double the percentage of abortions in the second trimester. While abortion is an extremely safe procedure, it is safest earlier in pregnancy.
Similar laws attacking women's access to safe and legal abortion have been enjoined by state and federal courts in Alabama, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.
"Today, the federal appeals court in Wisconsin recognized what the medical experts have been saying all along: These laws aren't about protecting women's health, they are about shutting down clinics and preventing a woman who has decided to have an abortion from actually getting one," said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project.
"This is an important victory for women's health and rights, and a rejection of political interference into women's most personal medical decisions. We are grateful that the court has ruled to protect access to safe, legal abortion for women in Wisconsin," said Cecile Richards, president, Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Laws restricting abortion hurt women -- as we've seen in states like Texas, where restrictions are already forcing women to end pregnancies on their own, without medical assistance. This is what we all feared would happen, and we're deeply concerned that we'll see this more and more if the Supreme Court does not intervene."
"For 80 years, PPWI has been providing high-quality, affordable, nonjudgmental care, and we will continue to make sure people in our state have access to the health care they deserve -- no matter what," stated Teri Huyck, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.
The law imposes a requirement that doctors who provide abortion obtain hospital admitting privileges at a local hospital. Data, including from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), shows that abortion has over a 99 percent safety record. The plaintiffs in this case already have plans in place for patient safety. Emergency rooms provide care if necessary, and all Wisconsin abortion clinics already have made arrangements with local hospitals in the extremely rare case that a patient needs hospital care.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Wisconsin Medical Society, the Wisconsin Hospital Association, the Wisconsin Public Health Association, the Wisconsin Academy of Family Physicians, the Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments and Boards, and the Wisconsin Alliance for Women's Health all oppose the law. In fact, at the federal trial an independent, court-appointed medical expert said of this law, "I think it is an unacceptable experiment to see if you decrease access (to abortion) and see if more women die. It is not acceptable. It is not ethical. People will resort to illegal abortions."
The case was brought on by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the ACLU, and the ACLU of Wisconsin on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services.
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
US Voters Sour on Trump Economic Agenda 'Of, By, and For Billionaires'
"There is no mystery as to why Americans are angry about Republicans' handling of the economy," said one economic justice campaigner.
Mar 18, 2025
Multiple public opinion surveys published in recent days reveal widespread voter disenchantment with U.S. President Donald Trump's economic stewardship amid ever-rising consumer prices, the specter of a recession sparked by what many see as a deliberate attempt to crash the economy for the benefit of the ultrawealthy, and overall policies that favor oligarchs and corporations over everyday Americans.
An NBCpoll published Sunday found that while Trump's overall approval rating of 47% is his highest ever recorded, most respondents—51%—disapproved of how he's started his second term. And while more Americans believe the country is on the right track than at any time since 2004, they are still in the minority, at 44%. A majority of respondents (54%) said the nation is generally heading in the wrong direction.
The poll also found that 44% of respondents approve of Trump's handling of the economy, while 54% disapprove. Regarding inflation—a key Trump campaign issue—just 42% of respondents said they approve of the president's leadership, versus 55% who disapprove.
Meanwhile, the latest data from the University of Michigan's Consumer Sentiment Survey showed a 22% plunge since last December amid heightened inflation expectations, while a poll published last week by Groundwork Collaborative and Data for Progress found that respondents are most frustrated by grocery price increases, healthcare costs, and housing prices.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's latest Food Price Outlook, overall food prices are projected to rise 3.4% in 2025, with the cost of some staples expected to soar much higher. For example, eggs prices are projected to skyrocket by a staggering 41%—and possibly as much as nearly 75%.
"Today's shocking consumer sentiment numbers are a referendum on the president's mishandling of the economy, just 54 days into office," Groundwork Collaborative policy and advocacy chief Alex Jacquez said in response to the University of Michigan poll. "Working families are longing for stability as their grocery bills and rent payments continue to climb, but Trump's chaotic approach to the economy has them feeling more uncertain than ever."
"Consumers are rightly terrified about what lies ahead," Jacquez added. "The administration is more focused on gutting Social Security to pay for tax giveaways to billionaires and corporations than they are making life more affordable for working families."
Kobie Christian, spokesperson for the economic justice group Unrig Our Economy, said Tuesday that "there is no mystery as to why Americans are angry about Republicans' handling of the economy."
"Prices are continuing to rise. Republican-backed tariffs are threatening to raise costs even more, torching Americans' 401(pk)s, and pushing us toward a recession," Christian continued. "Meanwhile, Elon Musk's [Department of Government Efficiency] is coming after Social Security and other vital programs on which millions of Americans rely, and Republicans in Congress are enabling it—all to pay for more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires."
"It could not be clearer that President Trump and Republicans in Congress are trying to reshape our government to be of, by, and for billionaires," Christian added. "Working people across the country are already making their voices heard during House recess by pushing back against these destructive policies and urging congressional Republicans to represent working families, veterans, and seniors, not big donors or special interests."
Other recent polls—including the National Federation of Independent Business' Optimism Index—show similar declines in confidence in Trump's policies and performance.
Then there's the stock market, essentially a gauge of investor confidence, which has seen its worst performance over a president's first 50 days since 2009, during the Great Recession. Many critics have openly asked whether the wrecking-ball approach of Trump and Musk is a deliberate bid to tank the economy so the rich can buy up assets at deep discounts.
It's not just critics—last week, Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy voiced concerns about the economy during a White House news conference, asking Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, "You're sure nobody here at the White House shorted the Dow?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Chief Justice Rebukes Trump Over Calls to Impeach Judges Who Rule Against Him
"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," said John Roberts, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mar 18, 2025
The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a rare statement on Tuesday rebuking calls from President Donald Trump and members of his orbit for the impeachment of federal judges who have ruled against the administration as it tramples the law to advance its far-right agenda.
"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose," said Chief Justice John Roberts, whom critics have long seen as an enabler of Trump.
As Jay Willis of Balls & Strikesnoted earlier this month, Roberts "authored the opinion in Trump v. United States, a case in which the six Republican justices effectively ended the ongoing criminal investigations into Trump, clearing the way for his election victory five months later."
"Before that," Willis added, "Roberts was part of the narrow majority in Trump v. Anderson that declared that only an act of Congress could bar Trump from serving as president again, notwithstanding the Constitution's explicit bar on insurrectionists holding public office that makes no mention of any requirement of a separate act of Congress."
congratulations to john roberts who is as responsible for the current state of affairs as any single person in the country
[image or embed]
— jamelle (@jamellebouie.net) March 18, 2025 at 12:50 PM
While Roberts' brief statement on Tuesday does not mention Trump by name, it comes hours after the president took to his social media platform to attack the federal judge who issued an order over the weekend barring the administration from deporting Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act.
The Trump administration defied that order. In his social media post on Tuesday, Trump called Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia—an Obama appointee—a "radical left lunatic" who "should be impeached."
Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) has filed articles of impeachment against Boasberg, who criticized the Trump administration during a hearing Monday over its refusal to comply with his order halting the deportation flights to El Salvador.
The impeachment push against Boasberg is part of a broader assault on the federal judiciary by Trump and his allies, who have expressed outrage at recent rulings against the administration as it assails basic rights and attempts to unilaterally eviscerate government departments.
Axiosreported Tuesday that "top MAGA-world figures are leaning into a fight with the judicial system." The outlet pointed to comments by former chief White House strategist Steve Bannon, who said Monday that "I think there ought to be a much broader swath of impeachments" against federal judges.
"We have to fight fire with fire," Bannon said.
Axios added that "the Article III Project, a 'brass knuckles' conservative legal group, launched a petition to build support for Congress to impeach the judge who ordered a halt to the deportations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Peace Institute Vows Legal Action to Oppose 'Illegal Takeover' by DOGE
"If DOGE can do this to USIP, what's to stop them from breaking into offices of other NGOs that receive U.S. funds? Or law firms or media that annoy the president?" said one humanitarian advocate.
Mar 18, 2025
Representatives of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency on Monday entered the headquarters with of the U.S. Institute of Peace with the help of D.C. police, according to the institute's staff—and now USIP's acting president, who was fired by the institute's newly configured board, is vowing to take legal action.
Fired acting president George Moose, who is challenging his removal, toldThe Associated Press on Monday, "What has happened here today is an illegal takeover by elements of the executive branch of a private nonprofit."
To CNN, Moose said that the institute intends to "vigorously" oppose DOGE's actions in court. "We are confident of our legal status, and we are confident that a court that gives us a hearing will be persuaded by the strength of our legal argument," he told the outlet.
The dramatic showdown on Monday follows an executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump in February that called for "the nonstatutory components and functions" of select "governmental entities"—including USiP—to "be eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law."
USIP, whose mission is to promote peace and end conflict abroad, is an independent organization that was created by Congress in 1984. Representatives from USIP contend that because the institute is a congressionally chartered nonprofit, Musk and Trump do not have the power to dismantle it, according to the The New York Times.
On Friday, the White House told all but three members of USIP's board they were fired and its remaining members—Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and president of the National Defense University Peter Garvin—replaced Moose with Kenneth Jackson, a State Department official who, per the Times, was involved in the Trump administration's targeting of the now largely hollowed out U.S. Agency for International Development. USIP does not view Jackson's appointment as legal, per CNN.
DOGE representatives unsuccessfully tried to gain access to the USIP building twice on Friday, the second time with FBI agents in toe, but were turned away by representatives for the institute, according to the Times.
Then, on Monday, members of DOGE arrived again with Jackson. According to multiple outlets, citing representatives from USIP, the institute called the D.C. Metropolitan Police, but when they arrived they allowed Musk's team to enter the building.
USIP's chief security officer Colin O'Brien toldCNN that when he went out to greet the police "they held the door open and allowed members of DOGE to enter the building, where they were also followed by 10 to 12 police officers, uniformed D.C. police officers."
Some USIP officials remained in the building after DOGE representatives were let in, including Moose. Police later forced him to leave the building, per CNN.
"Mr. Moose denied lawful access to Kenneth Jackson, the acting USIP president (as approved by the USIP board). The D.C. Police Department arrived on-site and escorted Mr. Jackson into the building. The only unlawful individual was Mr. Moose, who refused to comply, and even tried to fire USIP's private security team when said security team went to give access to Mr. Jackson," DOGE wrote in a post on X on Monday night.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) declared on X on Monday night that "I was at USIP tonight to conduct congressional oversight over DOGE's break-in. I spoke with Acting President & CEO Moose. USIP is an independent, non-profit entity and I will work to stop DOGE's illegal power grab."
Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International, wrote on X: "if DOGE can do this to USIP, what's to stop them from breaking into offices of other NGOs that receive U.S. funds? Or law firms or media that annoy the president?"
Two Musk officials who gained entry to USIP on Monday were Nate Cavanaugh and Justin Aimonetti, the same DOGE staffers who last month forced entry to the U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF), which was also named in Trump's February order, per the Times.
In early March, staff with the USADF tried to keep DOGE staff from entering their offices in D.C. DOGE staff managed to gain entry after returning with U.S. Marshals.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular