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
Contact:
Email:,center.press@reprorights.org
WASHINGTON
With only one Justice dissenting, the U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to suspend a recent ruling from the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which would have shuttered three of the four remaining abortion clinics in Louisiana. Today's order--which allows the two Louisiana clinics immediately forced to close by the Fifth Circuit's ruling to reopen their doors and protects another clinic from imminent closure- comes two days after oral argument at the nation's highest court in a challenge to a similar clinic shutdown law in Texas.
Notably, the ruling states the order is "consistent with the Court's action granting a stay in Whole Woman's Health v Cole"--the Texas case currently before the Supreme Court.
The Louisiana measure--which was signed by Governor Bobby Jindal in June 2014 and forces any doctor who provides abortion care to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital--will remain blocked while the litigation continues. If the majority of Louisiana's clinics were to have remained shuttered, the closest provider of safe and legal abortion for many women in the state would have been in Jackson, Mississippi--a clinic that is only open due to a court order obtained by the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:
"For the third time in a little over a year, the Supreme Court has stepped in to preserve women's ability to get the constitutionally-protected health care they need.
"Our Constitution, along with nearly half a century of legal rulings, is clear that women have the right to make critical decisions about their life and health without interference from politicians. These underhanded tactics to cut off women's access to safe, legal abortion simply cannot stand.
"Just two days after arguing our case before the Supreme Court to strike down a similar sweeping law in Texas, we look to the Justices to put an end to these sham measures threatening women's rights, health and lives across the U.S.
Ilene Jaroslaw, David Brown, and Zoe Levine of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Demme Doufekias, Marc Hearron, David Scannell, Kerry Jones, and Tim Gallivan from Morrison & Foerster, and William E. Rittenberg of Rittenberg, Samuel, and Phillips, LLC filed the challenge to Louisiana's clinic shutdown law on behalf of Hope Medical Group for Women, Causeway Medical Clinic, and Bossier City Medical Suite in August 2014 (Causeway Medical Clinic closed in January 2016). A federal district court judge blocked the measure from taking effect the same month; the same judge continued to block the measure in January 2016. On February 24, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted an emergency stay of the federal district court decision from late January, immediately closing two of the remaining four clinics in the state and threatening to close another were it not for immediate Supreme Court relief.
The Supreme Court is also currently considering a similar clinic shutdown law in Texas; oral argument in that challenge took place on Wednesday, March 2, 2016 and a ruling is expected before the end of the Court's term. The Fifth Circuit has issued three separate opinions in over two years (October 2013; October 2014; June 2015) regarding that law which shuttered clinics in Texas; two of three orders were effectively reversed because the Supreme Court intervened to keep the clinics open.
Medical experts confirm that legal abortion care in the U.S. is extremely safe, with less than a quarter of 1 percent of patients experiencing a major complication. Furthermore, privileges can be very difficult to obtain due to individual hospital policies or biases against abortion providers for reasons not related to the doctors' qualifications. Earlier this year, the nation's leading medical experts--including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, as well as organizations representing pediatricians, nurses, family physicians, osteopaths, hospitalists and public health specialists--united in opposition to clinic shutdown laws like Louisiana's in amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to reject Texas' clinic shutdown law.
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
Big Oil Wields Influence on Universities, Delaying Green Transition: Study
"We find that universities are an established yet under-researched vehicle of climate obstruction by the fossil fuel industry," the authors wrote.
"Fossil fuel companies have embedded themselves in universities across the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and beyond," they concluded.
"Everything that's been done so far by researchers on this indicates an emerging consensus... that this is a really serious and significant problem that needs to be taken a lot more seriously," Geoffrey Supran, director of the Climate Accountability Lab at the University of Miami and a co-author of the review, toldFinancial Times.
Jennie Stephens, a professor at the ICARUS Climate Research Center at Maynooth University in Ireland who also co-authored the study, toldDeSmog that "when you pull it all together, you realize how pervasive a strategy this has been."
"The science has been telling us that fossil fuel phaseout is the number one thing that we need to focus on, but within our universities, there's very little research on how to do fossil fuel phaseout," Stephens toldThe Guardian. "This provides some explanation for why society has been so ineffective and inadequate in our responses to the climate crisis."
Research on the links between Big Oil and universities in the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Australia has indeed been limited. The authors could only find 14 peer-reviewed papers and 21 civil society reports published in English between 2003 and 2023.
The studies they did find document the strong influence of the industry on institutions of higher education. They cite a number of examples, many of which are from elite universities. BP contributed between $2.1 million and $2.6 million to Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initiative between 2012 and 2017 and remains a sponsor. In 2017, a public relations firm working with BP wrote in an internal memo that partnership with Princeton was a way of "authenticating BP's commitment to low carbon."
An influential 2011 study by industry-linked researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Energy Initiative helped persuade policymakers that natural gas was a helpful "bridge" fuel—which effectively became Obama administration policy. Lead author Ernest Moniz became the U.S. Secretary of Energy in 2013.
These outcomes indicated the success of an industry strategy to influence university research and debate. A leaked 1998 internal memo from American Petroleum Institute, a lobby group, the subject matter of which was "build[ing] a case against precipitous action on climate change," recommended fostering "cooperative relationships with all major scientists whose research in this field supports our position."
These are a few of the examples of Big Oil's links to universities cited in a study in WIREs Climate Change published on September 5, 2024.
Fossil fuel industry influence hasn't been studied nearly as thoroughly as other potential conflicts of interest or sources of bias in the research process, the authors wrote. Their literature review found that many academics had drawn comparisons to tobacco and pharmaceutical meddling in academia. They wrote:
The studies reviewed here revealed parallels between fossil fuel industry strategies and those of industries like tobacco and pharmaceuticals. For example, fossil fuel companies have supported research that had commercial applications (e.g., hydraulic fracturing) or was otherwise favorable to their legal and policy positions (e.g., anti-punitive-damages law review articles)... Previous [conflict of interest] research has noted how the pharmaceutical industry stands out for arguing that it produces beneficial products, whereas industries like tobacco and lead seek to minimize the apparent harms of their products. The fossil fuel industry today appears to do both, and notably positions itself as an innovator of purportedly beneficial climate solutions, such as natural gas and carbon capture and storage.
The authors of the review also drew attention to universities' opacity in dealings with Big Oil, writing that there's a "widespread lack of transparency on funding ties, amounts, and contract details."
They wrote that, though academics have not devoted much attention to industry influence on higher education, some activists and NGOs have long tried to raise the issue. Campaigners seconded that fact in responding to the study on Thursday.
"This literature review confirms what students in our movement have known for years," said Jake Lowe, executive director of Campus Climate Network, told The Guardian. "Big Oil has infiltrated academia in order to gain undue credibility and obstruct climate action."
Lowe's group is one of many that's calling for universities to "dissociate" from fossil fuel interests—a movement that Supran, the Miami professor, called "basically divestment 2.0."
The problem is by no means limited to English-speaking countries. An investigation by Investigate Europe and openDemocracy last year found that European universities are also rife with Big Oil influence.
Most Popular