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.
Bethany Woolman, ACLU of Northern California, 415-293-6385, bwoolman@aclunc.org
Sandra Hernandez, ACLU of Southern California, 213-977-5252, shernandez@aclusocal.org
Allison Steinberg, ACLU, 212-549-2540, asteinberg@aclu.org
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Northern California, and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California today filed a lawsuit against the federal government for awarding millions of dollars annually to organizations that fail to provide crucial medical care to unaccompanied immigrant minors. The government authorizes some of these organizations to refuse -- on religious grounds -- to follow the law that requires access to contraception and abortion, even in cases of rape.
The suit claims that by authorizing government grantees to impose religiously based restrictions on young women's access to reproductive health care the government has violated the constitutional guarantee of the separation of church and state. Groups like the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have been awarded upwards of $10 million annually to care for these young people, despite its explicit refusal to allow these young women to access contraception and abortion. Placing restrictions on reproductive health care has devastating consequences for this population, according to the ACLU. A high number of unaccompanied immigrant minors have been raped in their home countries or during their journey to the United States, and therefore they have an acute need for critical reproductive health care.
"When a teen has endured unthinkable tragedy -- violence, rape, a terrifying journey to an unfamiliar place -- and she arrives here afraid and alone, the last thing we should do is deny her the care she needs," said ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Brigitte Amiri. "Our taxpayer dollars should not be used to authorize organizations to violate the law and impose their religious beliefs on these young women and deny them care they desperately need."
The federal government is legally required to provide unaccompanied immigrant minors -- children and teenagers who come to the U.S. on their own -- with basic necessities, such as housing, food, and access to emergency and routine medical care, including family planning services and abortion. Reports indicate that between 60 and 80 percent of women and girls who cross the border are sexually assaulted.
"The federal government can't abdicate its legal obligation to protect and provide reproductive health care to these vulnerable young women. Allowing religious organization to dictate the type of care that these teens, who often have fled unimaginable violence, receive is not only unlawful but also cruel," said ACLU of Southern California LGBTQ, Gender, and Reproductive Justice Project Director Melissa Goodman.
Documents obtained through an ACLU Freedom of Information Act lawsuit show that the federal government approved grants to USCCB even though it was well aware that USCCB's agreement with its sub-grantees explicitly prohibits them from providing, referring for, or in any way facilitating access to contraceptives and abortion services. The FOIA documents also show that the government allowed religiously affiliated grantees to effectively kick young women out of their programs because they requested an abortion.
The ACLU filed a similar case in January 2009 in Massachusetts after the ACLU learned through an investigation that the federal government allowed USCCB to impose religiously based restrictions on reproductive health services in a taxpayer funded program for trafficking victims. In March 2012, the district court ruled in the ACLU's favor, holding that a religious institution does not have the right to use taxpayer money to impose its beliefs on trafficking survivors and deny them access to reproductive health care. In January 2013, the First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case as moot since USCCB's contract expired and was not renewed.
Despite the federal government's assurance that USCCB would not be awarded the trafficking contract in the foreseeable future, the federal government once again awarded that contract to USCCB in 2015. The ACLU has filed a FOIA lawsuit to obtain more information about that contract.
More on this case including stories of harm from women: https://www.aclu.org/feature/alone-afraid-abused
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) 549-2666The "courage" of healthcare workers, said Sen. Ed Markey, was "matched only by Dr. de la Torre's cowardice."
The obscenely rich CEO of Steward Health Care, a for-profit network formed with private equity backing, violated a subpoena on Thursday by declining to testify at a Senate hearing on how mismanagement of the now-bankrupt hospital system harmed patient care.
But in Ralph de la Torre's absence, members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee did hear from nurses who witnessed firsthand how Steward's prioritization of shareholder payouts and lavish executive compensation left its hospitals in dire straights, with badly insufficient staffing and resources.
Ellen MacInnis, a longtime nurse at St. Elizabeth's Medical Center in Boston, said in response to a question from Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) that hospital conditions are "noticeably different" under private equity ownership.
"After Steward took over," said MacInnis, the hospital began "violating agreements" it made with nurses and "laid off all the nursing assistants on our maternity floors."
When Murphy said that "the purpose" of hospitals under Steward's ownership was apparently to "make the owners filthy rich," MacInnis responded, "Yes, absolutely."
Earlier in her testimony, MacInnis offered what she described as an "egregious and appalling example" of the incompetence and cruelty of Steward's management: "The failure of Steward to ensure a supply of bereavement boxes, which are the cases used to carry the remains of deceased newborns to the morgue."
"Instead, staff were expected to transport these remains in banker's and shipping boxes," said MacInnis. "To compensate for this indignity it was left to our own nurses to go online and purchase appropriate containers on Amazon."
The "most tragic example," MacInnis said, was the death of a 39-year-old mother "simply because the embolism coil that would have saved her life had been repossessed by another unpaid vender."
Watch the full hearing:
Steward has faced close scrutiny from lawmakers since it filed for bankruptcy in May after de la Torre and his private equity partners raked in massive sums of cash—making the for-profit network a stark example of private equity's parasitic impact on the U.S. healthcare system.
The Senate HELP Committee, led by progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), voted to subpoena de la Torre in late July after he refused to voluntarily appear before lawmakers.
The Steward CEO's defiance of the panel's subpoena led Sanders to announce Thursday that he "will be asking the committee to report a resolution to authorize civil enforcement and criminal contempt proceedings against Dr. de la Torre requiring compliance with the subpoena."
A hearing on the proposed contempt resolution is scheduled for next week.
"There's no incentive for a for-profit company that's looking to get every dime out of the hospital and all the services to add more nurses."
As The American Prospect's Maureen Tkacik noted last week, Steward "entered bankruptcy with $8 billion in debt while its CEO siphoned out more than a quarter-billion dollars and blew most of it on an epic midlife crisis, featuring a new wife 29 years his junior, a 500-acre ranch for her prizewinning racehorses, a $77,000-a-month detail for her security while traveling between the couple’s far-flung mansions, an Amalfi Coast wedding choreographed by Gwen Stefani and Blake Shelton’s wedding planner, and not one but two yachts."
Just ahead of Thursday's hearing, The Wall Street Journalreported that Steward paid out $790 million in dividends to shareholders years before filing for bankruptcy. Much of the $790 million went to the private equity giant Cerberus, which owned Steward between 2010 and 2020.
Nurses' testimony at Thursday's hearing made clear that such avarice came at the expense of healthcare workers and patients.
"There's no incentive for a for-profit company that's looking to get every dime out of the hospital and all the services to add more nurses," Audra Sprague, a former nurse at the newly shuttered Nashoba Valley Medical Center, told the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee during Thursday's hearing.
"They don't care how your day is," Sprague continued. "They're not there to actually help patients, they're there to make money."
After the hearing adjourned, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) held a press conference alongside nurses and other advocates in front of the U.S. Capitol Building.
I’m live in front of the US Capitol after Steward CEO Ralph de la Torre failed to testify at this morning’s Senate HELP Committee. He violated a legal order to appear and must be made accountable. Join us: https://t.co/GThvXuYfFv
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) September 12, 2024
Markey, a vocal critic of Steward, applauded the bravery of healthcare workers fighting for their patients in the face of private equity greed.
"Their courage," said the Massachusetts senator, "is matched only by Dr. de la Torre's cowardice."
"The science is clearer than ever: LNG exports and natural gas-sourced hydrogen pose grave risks to our planet and will undermine President Biden's own climate goals," said one campaigner.
More than 125 climate, environmental, and health scientists and researchers on Thursday implored the Biden administration to "follow legitimate science and reject the expansion of fossil fuel programs," pointing to a new study showing liquefied natural gas has a 33% greater greenhouse gas footprint than coal.
"As U.S. scientists and researchers we are closely following efforts by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Treasury to develop greenhouse gas analyses of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and hydrogen, and implore you to use the best available science when conducting this analysis," the scientists wrote in a letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
"The stakes could not be higher," the letter asserts. "The choices that you make relating to modeling assumptions for the heat-trapping potential of natural gas will determine if the federal government will make decisions based on climate science or wishful thinking."
The scientists continued:
The main constituent in natural gas is methane, a powerful climate-disrupting pollutant that traps more than 80 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over 20 years, the relevant timeframe in which we must act. We agree with President [Joe] Biden's declaration to world leaders that this is the decisive decade. As the climate crisis becomes more urgent, we are rapidly approaching planetary thresholds that, once breached, cannot be reversed.
The fossil fuel industry wants you to distort the scientific evidence and asserts, falsely, that decisions to expand natural gas production and consumption are consistent with U.S. and global climate goals. They are advocating for flawed modeling assumptions that would hide the true climate impact of gas. It is imperative that the Departments of Energy and Treasury reject these efforts.
The letter's signers cite a study published this month by Cornell University climate scientist Robert Howarth which—when properly accounting for LNG's full life cycle, including extraction, liquefaction, transportation, and end-source combustion—found that the fracked gas has a 33% greater greenhouse emissions impact than coal.
"An abundance of scientific evidence now shows that natural gas is at least as damaging to the climate as coal and may be worse due to inevitable leaks and disproves the claim that natural gas can serve as a 'bridge fuel' while renewable energy sources ramp up," the scientists wrote.
Jim Walsh, policy director at Food & Water Watch, said in a statement that "the science is clearer than ever: LNG exports and natural gas-sourced hydrogen pose grave risks to our planet and will undermine President Biden's own climate goals."
"This administration must ignore industry propaganda, follow legitimate science, and reject the expansion of fossil fuel programs like LNG exports and gas-sourced hydrogen," Walsh added.
Noting that "over 20 years, methane is a far more powerful climate villain than ever previously appreciated," Science & Environmental Health Network senior scientist Sandra Steingraber said that "methane is the Houdini of greenhouse gasses, escaping into the atmosphere from all parts of the natural gas system at a pace that far exceeds earlier estimates."
"Taken together, these findings mean that the stakes for the modeling assumptions chosen for estimating the climate impacts of LNG and hydrogen fuels could not be higher," Steingraber stressed. "It's imperative that our Departments of Energy and Treasury base their climate modeling assumptions on the abundance of scientific evidence and not the distorted claims and wishful thinking of the fossil fuel industry."
Despite campaign pledges to center climate action—including by banning new fossil fuel drilling on public lands—Biden oversaw the approval of more new permits for drilling on public land during his first two years in office than former President Donald Trump, the 2024 Republican nominee, did in 2017 and 2018.
The Biden administration has also held fossil fuel lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and has approved the highly controversial Willow project and Mountain Valley Pipeline. Biden also increased liquefied natural gas production and export before pausing LNG exports earlier this year.
Despite the pause—which activists are calling on the Biden administration to make permanent—the president has also overseen what climate defenders have called a "staggering" LNG expansion, including Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass 2 export terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana and more than a dozen other projects that, if all completed, would make U.S. exported LNG emissions higher than the European Union's combined greenhouse gas footprint.
"The growing number of lawsuits against fossil fuel corporations underlines how their historic and continued role in driving and profiting from climate change is catching up to them."
An increasing number of climate lawsuits filed against fossil fuel companies in the last decade could put a dent in the business model of large fossil fuel companies, according to a report released Thursday.
The 16-page report—titled Big Oil in Court and co-created by Oil Change International and Zero Carbon Analytics—documents dozens of cases worldwide, mostly since 2015, when the Paris agreement was signed. Many of the cases center on climate damages, misleading advertising about fossil fuels, or failure to reduce emissions in line with legal agreements. Over half of the cases have been filed in the United States, with a majority of others in Western Europe.
"The growing number of lawsuits against fossil fuel corporations underlines how their historic and continued role in driving and profiting from climate change is catching up to them," David Tong, an industry campaign manager at Oil Change International, an advocacy group, said in a statement.
"The wave of lawsuits against Big Oil could lead to serious impacts on their bottom line, a disincentive for investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, a reduction in corporate value, and a challenge to their social license to continue harming communities around the world," Tong added.
Last year saw 14 climate cases targeted at Big Oil filed worldwide, a record. A database cited in the report that dates to 2005 records 86 total cases, the vast majority having been file since 2015. Forty of the cases are still pending.
The most common type of climate-focused case has been for damages, with 30 filed just since 2017—prior to that year, only three had been filed. Dozens of U.S. states and cities have filed such cases, though none has yet reached a trial. The damages case in the U.S. that's the furthest along, City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco et al., has faced extraordinary legal and political pushback from the industry, which is seeking to have it dismissed.
One of the most prominent damages cases outside the U.S. features Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer who sued energy giant RWE in German court in 2015 for having a partial role in the melting of a glacier in the Andes. He seeks reimbursement for the flood protection infrastructure that he and 50,000 other residents had to erect. Lawyers and judges traveled from Germany to Peru in 2022 to assess Luciano Lliuya's claims. The case is ongoing.
In the statement accompanying Thursday's report, Lliuya said:
Taking on carbon majors in court can be daunting. But the fear of losing your home and everything you’ve worked for due to the reckless actions of fossil fuel companies is even greater. For those of us directly impacted by the climate crisis, the courts offer a glimmer of hope. People like me are in court because our livelihoods are at serious risk and we are asking judges to hold the fossil fuel companies responsible.
The second most common type of climate case against Big Oil has focused on misleading advertising. Of the nine cases of this type that have reached a conclusion, Big Oil won only one case; in each of the others, the companies retracted their claims or were ruled against. The United Kingdom's Advertising Standard Authority found Shell's low-carbon claims to be misleading in separate cases in 2020 and 2023, for example.
There have also been a number of cases seeking to force fossil fuel companies to adhere to legally mandated climate targets. The most prominent outcome from these cases was a landmark ruling against Shell by a Dutch court in 2021, which found that the company must cut emissions by 45% by 2030; the seminal ruling, which was based on emissions limits set in the Paris agreement, pertains to emissions that come Shell's fossil fuel products, and not just the company's direct business activities.
The report's analysis doesn't include climate lawsuits targeted at governments or at companies involved in other areas of the fossil fuel supply chain.
In response to the report, Michael Gerrard, the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, toldThe Guardian that there have been a "formidable number of cases" but "none of them have broken through" except those dealing with advertising.