August, 23 2019, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Bold Nebraska: Mark Hefflinger, (323) 972-5192, mark@boldalliance.org
Â
Â
Nebraska Supreme Court Upholds Law that Ignores Landowners' Property Rights, Indigenous Sovereignty in Flawed Decision on Keystone XL Pipeline Route
Despite the flawed state decision, three federal lawsuit challenges to pipeline project continue to proceed
WASHINGTON
Nebraska landowners and Tribal Nations said they would continue to fight the Trump administration's rubber-stamp approval of a federal permit for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, after the Nebraska Supreme Court ignored due process rights, property rights, and indigenous sovereignty in a flawed decision on the "Mainline Alternative" route through Nebraska. This new route has undergone no legitimate environmental, property rights or cultural reviews and was approved without any proper notice to landowners and Ponca members along the new route.
WHAT: Telepresser for Media on Nebraska Supreme Court KXL Decision
WHEN: Friday, August 23, 10:30 a.m. E.T. / 9:30 a.m. C.T.
CALL-IN DETAILS: DIAL-IN FOR MEDIA: 877-876-9173; PASSWORD: KXL
Landowners' attorneys with Domina Law Group argued that the proposed pipeline route's approval by the Nebraska Public Service Commission in November 2017 was illegal on a number of grounds -- including the violation of due process rights for landowners on the route who were never afforded a chance to participate in public hearings or comment as affected landowners. Likewise, attorneys for the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska and Yankton Sioux Tribe argued before the Court that the route's approval was illegal without notice to landowners and Ponca members on the route and without any survey of sacred and cultural sites on the proposed route, including the Ponca Trail of Tears.
The risky pipeline project's fate is still very much in doubt, as three separate federal lawsuits continue to proceed that challenge the controversial project's permits.
President Trump essentially has tried to start the process over, by ending the Executive Order which has governed cross-border pipelines. In its place, Trump issued an "Executive Memorandum" saying TransCanada's "permit" was approved, without any need for standard reviews that govern critical water crossings and other environmental permits. This action in turn prompted three new federal lawsuits, outlined below:
- Bold, Sierra Club, NRDC, Center for Biological Diversity, Northern Plains Resource Council suit: Filed July 1, 2019. This case is in its early briefing stages. Challenges the Army Corps' illegal approval without evaluating Keystone XL's impacts as required by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act. The lawsuit also makes Endangered Species Act claims against Trump, the Army Corps, TransCanada, and local power-line builders -- over the project's lethal threats to endangered species, including the whooping crane. (https://boldnebraska.org/conservation-groups-launch-new-legal-challenges-to-keystone-xl-pipeline-approval/)
- Indigenous Environmental Network, North Coast Rivers Alliance suit: Filed April 5, 2019. This case challenges Trump's unilateral permit for Keystone XL, and seeks a new preliminary injunction on construction; oral arguments are scheduled for Oct. 9 in Montana federal court re: the challenge to Trump's "permit," and a U.S. government motion to dismiss case. (https://www.ienearth.org/9th-court-of-appeals-throws-out-case-blocking-keystone-xl-pipeline/)
- Native American Rights Fund, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Fort Belknap, Gros Ventre suit: Filed June 7, 2019. Rosebud Sioux Tribe v Trump seeks to rescind Trump's unilateral "permit." In conjunction, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe held its own Utility Commission public hearings on KXL, and rejected the project, refusing permission for TransCanada to use their roads to move equipment to the proposed pipeline route. (https://www.narf.org/cases/keystone/)
Meanwhile, TransCanada has not yet announced a Final Investment Decision on whether to even move forward and build Keystone XL, should it finally resolve these numerous outstanding permitting and legal challenges.
"The Nebraska legislature and a Democratic President can fix this very bad ruling coming out of the Nebraska Supreme Court. At some point in our country's history, property rights of farmers and sovereign rights of Tribal Nations should trump Big Oil's land grab," said Jane Kleeb, Bold Nebraska founder. "The Nebraska legislature can fix our broken state laws that give too much power to Big Oil. There is nothing American about the KXL pipeline--it is a project with foreign steel and foreign tarsands all headed to the export market. Our water is on the line here, and for the past decade too many politicians sat on their hands while the people did the work. It's time for our elected officials to now step up and make it clear that pipelines are not in our public interest."
"The Ponca Tribe is extremely disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision. Not only did the Court ignore the due process rights of landowners along the route that never got notice or an opportunity to be heard about a pipeline going through their land, but it disregarded the potential destruction of the Tribe's cultural resources by TransCanada, including the Ponca Trail of Tears," said Larry Wright, Jr., Chairman of the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska. "The reality is neither TransCanada nor the PSC has any idea what cultural and historic resources are along the route because surveys have never been done. We've seen what pipeline companies do to cultural and historic resources in South Dakota with DAPL -- they intentionally plow through them and destroy them. Even the federal court in Montana recognized that the pipeline cannot be built until cultural and historic surveys are done, but the Supreme Court of Nebraska doesn't seem to care about those resources in its own state. Regardless, the Ponca Tribe will continue to fight this pipeline that threatens all of our land, water, and resources in Nebraska."
Bold Alliance is a non-profit organization fighting fossil fuel projects, protecting landowners against eminent domain abuse, and working for clean energy solutions while building an engaged base of citizens who care about the land, water and climate change.
LATEST NEWS
Sanders, Khanna Lead Push to Tackle Medical Debt Crushing US Workers
"The time has come to cancel all medical debt and guarantee healthcare to all as a human right, not a privilege," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
May 08, 2024
A quartet of progressive U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday introduced bicameral legislation "to eliminate all $220 billion in medical debt held by millions of Americans, wipe it from credit reports, and drastically limit the accrual of future medical debt."
The Medical Debt Cancellation Act—introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Sen. Jeff Merkely (D-Ore.), and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)—is a four-point plan for ending the medical debt that's crushing so many working-class Americans.
"Our current healthcare system is bankrupting Americans."
"The medical debt crisis has exploded in recent years, decimating Americans' bank accounts and deterring them from seeking healthcare," Sanders' office said in a statement. "Among all working-age adults in the United States, an estimated 27% are currently carrying medical debt of more than $500, and 15% have medical debt loads of $2,000 or more."
If passed, the Medical Debt Cancellation Act would:
- Amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, making it illegal to collect medical debt incurred prior to the bill's enactment and creating a private right of action for patients;
- Amend the Fair Consumer Credit Reporting Act, effectively wiping medical debt from credit reports by preventing credit reporting agencies from reporting information related to debt that arose from medical expenses;
- Create a grant program within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to cancel medical debt, prioritizing low-resource providers and vulnerable populations; and
- Amend the Public Health Service Act, updating billing and debt collection requirements to limit the potential for future debt to be incurred.
"This is the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world," said Sanders. "People in our country should not be going bankrupt because they got cancer and could not afford to pay their medical bills. No one in America should face financial ruin because of the outrageous cost of an unexpected medical emergency or a hospital stay."
But many do. In 2018 alone, 8 million people in the U.S. were driven into poverty due to medical debt. According to Sanders' office, nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults say they are worried about unexpected medical bills and nearly 1 in 4 people report having foregone medical treatment over cost concerns—including almost 20% of adults covered by health insurance.
"The time has come to cancel all medical debt and guarantee healthcare to all as a human right, not a privilege," said Sanders, a longtime proponent for Medicare for All in the only industrialized nation without universal coverage.
Khanna lamented that "our current healthcare system is bankrupting Americans."
"I've heard heartbreaking stories from constituents who have skipped doctor's appointments due to cost, who have lost loved ones because they couldn't afford their medication, and who aren't able to buy a house or get a job because of crippling medical debt," the congressman said.
"I'm so proud to join Sen. Sanders to cancel medical debt, wipe it from credit reports, and reform our system going forward," he added. "This bill would transform the lives of millions of Americans and I couldn't ask for a better partner in the fight."
This isn't Congress' first attempt to address the issue of medical debt. Last year, Tlaib
introduced the Restoring Unfairly Impaired Credit and Protecting Consumers Act, which would reduce the amount of time that negative information remains on a credit report from seven years to four and compel reporting agencies to erase adverse data stemming from "predatory loans and fraudulent activity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Study Links Abortion Restrictions and Intimate Partner Homicide
"In thinking about pregnancy itself as a risk factor for homicide, it follows that the ability to prevent or end a pregnancy" could have "immediate implications" for the safety of pregnant people, said one researcher.
May 08, 2024
A new study links abortion restrictions to an increased risk that pregnant people will be murdered by their intimate partners—and since researchers examined laws that were in place before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and cleared the way for statewide abortion bans, the authors warn that the threat may be even greater than the analysis shows.
In the study released Monday, researchers at Tulane University looked at five separate abortion restrictions and compared them to the intimate partner homicide rates reported by the National Violent Death Reporting System at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
For each of the abortion restrictions, all of which were in place from 2014-22, the rate of intimate partner homicide among women and girls of reproductive age rose 3.4%.
The researchers found that extrapolated across the United States, an additional 24 women were killed by their intimate partners over the time period.
The study controlled for domestic violence risk factors including income inequality and gun ownership.
Intimate partner homicide is "consistently among the leading causes of death in pregnant and postpartum people," lead author Maeve Wallace, an associate professor at Tulane, toldThe Guardian.
Because it is still relatively rare, however, the research team used girls and women of reproductive age as a proxy for victims of violence who were likely pregnant or postpartum.
"In thinking about pregnancy itself as a risk factor for homicide, it follows that the ability to prevent or end a pregnancy" could have "immediate implications" for the safety of pregnant people in states with severe abortion restrictions and bans, Wallace told The Guardian.
The newspaper reported that the research "is almost certainly an underestimate of the potential risk to pregnant and postpartum women, because intimate partner violence is generally underreported."
The study is the latest research illustrating "the horrific reality for women in America," said U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
Another study published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons in February found a 75% higher rate of peripartum homicide—the murder of a pregnant person or within a year of their giving birth—in states that restricted abortion access from 2018-20.
Reproductive justice advocates have pointed out that at least four states with abortion bans in place also ban divorce for married people who are pregnant.
"An abusive partner oftentimes views pregnancy as a loss of control, that their victim will now not be solely dedicated to them but will have somebody else that diverts their attention away from the abusive partner," Crystal Justice, chief external affairs officer at the National Domestic Violence Hotline, told The 19th last month after the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated an 1864 abortion ban, which has since been repealed by state lawmakers but still could be in effect for part of this year.
"Not only is the state now saying with this harmful and antiquated law that you must stay pregnant against your will," Justice said, but "during that pregnancy, the state is not going to let you legally divorce your abusive partner. I can't think of anything more outrageous or cruel."
The U.S. National Domestic Violence Hotline can be reached at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), by texting "START" to 88788, or through chat at thehotline.org. It offers 24/7, free, and confidential support. DomesticShelters.org has a list of global and national resources.
Keep ReadingShow Less
White House Needs a Strategy for Combating Islamophobia, Say Rights Groups
"Any genuine attempt to combat Islamophobia must start with the government acknowledging the harm it continues to inflict both domestically and internationally, and offering adequate redress to affected communities at home and globally."
May 08, 2024
Nearly 100 organizations joined Muslims for Just Futures on Tuesday in calling on U.S. President Joe Biden to introduce a White House Islamophobia Strategy that centers government accountability and solidarity with Muslim and Arab American communities, demanding that the Biden administration honor the "lived experiences" of people who have faced Islamophobic attacks that have ramped up since Hamas attacked southern Israel last October.
The coalition's 26-page community memorandum, dated April 2024, was publicly released on Tuesday, the same day Biden spoke about fighting antisemitism in a speech marking the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's Days of Remembrance.
Biden's conflation of antisemitism with protesters' and voters' demands to end U.S. support for Israel in order to save the lives of Palestinians in Gaza, said the community memorandum, has had "profound negative effects" on Muslim and Arab Americans.
The coalition said that organizations involved in drafting the memorandum—including Afghans for a Better Tomorrow, American Muslim Bar Association, and the Center for Constitutional Rights—"emphasized the direct role of the White House in perpetuating Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism, and anti-Arab racism through its ongoing support for the genocide and occupation in Palestine," among other military campaigns.
"Any genuine attempt to combat Islamophobia must start with the government acknowledging the harm it continues to inflict both domestically and internationally, and offering adequate redress to affected communities at home and globally," reads the memorandum.
The document includes a number of recommendations for agencies across the federal government, including a call for all agencies to vet potential employees "for affiliation with white nationalist or white supremacist" groups.
In the first weeks of Israel's bombardment of Gaza last fall, one high-profile alleged Islamophobic attack was perpetrated by a former State Department official who had served in the Obama administration and was filmed harassing a food cart vendor in New York.
The document makes other recommendations including:
- Biden to call for an immediate and permanent cease-fire in Gaza and end U.S. support for Israel's bombardment of the enclave;
- The closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention center;
- The U.S. intelligence community to "stop weaponizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act against Black, Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, and South Asian (BAMEMSA) communities by surveilling citizens and non-citizens and collecting communications without a warrant;
- The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to consult with Black, Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, and South Asian communities about their needs and concerns, amid a surge in Islamophobic attacks that was recorded by the Council on American-Islamic Relations last year;
- The Federal Bureau of Investigation to end its use of "secret and discriminatory watchlists," which includes 1.5 million people in 2019—95% of whom had Muslim names; and
- The government to ensure that universities and schools end the targeting of "Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, and allied students supporting Palestine," who have been "discriminated against by their universities, and physically attacked, doxxed, and intimidated in efforts to silence their advocacy for Palestinian rights and opposition to Israel's genocide."
The memorandum was released as a research scholar at Arizona State University, Jonathan Yudelman, was reported to be on leave after cellphone video last weekend captured him intimidating and yelling at a women wearing a hijab.
Other Islamophobic attacks in recent months have included the stabbing of a young Palestinian American man in Austin, Texas and the shooting of three Palestinian students in Burlington, Vermont.
"By embracing a framework that honors lived experiences and acknowledges the diverse impacts within Muslim and related communities, we can begin the urgent task of dismantling systemic barriers that harm Muslim communities and those racially perceived as such," said Muslims for Just Futures. "Additionally, the government must take decisive action to dismantle policies that perpetuate Islamophobia while actively involving affected communities in decision-making processes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular