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
ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and Consumers Challenge Trump Administration Rule That Threatens Insurance Coverage for Abortion
The rule imposes more than $1 billion in unnecessary costs in an effort to coerce insurance companies to stop offering coverage for abortion, affecting more than 3 million consumers.
WASHINGTON
Planned Parenthood of Maryland, Inc., and several consumers around the country filed a lawsuit today challenging the Trump administration's new rule designed to make insurance companies stop offering coverage for abortion. They are represented by attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., and Brown Goldstein & Levy, LLP.
In December 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a new rule that, if implemented, would force insurance companies that sell plans in the Affordable Care Act individual marketplaces to send two separate bills to customers -- one for the coverage of abortion care, and another for coverage of other health care. Insurers will also have to instruct their customers to pay the bills using two checks, two money orders, or two electronic transactions every month.
As the administration acknowledged in finalizing the rule, the extensive administrative burdens will lead to higher premiums for consumers and will cause some insurers to drop insurance coverage for abortion altogether. As the administration also acknowledged, confusion about these new requirements will lead some people to miss payments and risk losing their health insurance coverage entirely.
"If this rule takes effect, I face the terrifying risk of losing not only my insurance coverage for abortion, but my insurance coverage entirely, which would be devastating for me given my pre-existing condition," said Rebecca, a resident of Washington, D.C. and plaintiff in the case. "That's why I'm joining the ACLU and Planned Parenthood to fight back. It is cruel and unacceptable that the Trump administration is interfering in my health care and trying to interfere with how health insurance companies do business, just because they want to make it more difficult for me to access my right to abortion."
"The Trump administration's new insurance rule is another attack on abortion care, designed solely to push safe, legal abortion further out of reach," said Meagan Burrows, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "And yet again, its actions will have the most devastating effect on already marginalized communities, including low-income people, people with limited English proficiency, and people with disabilities. Abortion is health care, and our government should be making it easier -- not harder -- for people to get the health care they need."
More than 3 million consumers would be affected by the rule's onerous restrictions, including the individual plaintiffs in the lawsuit from Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and Maine.The rule would also affect one-third of the individual market exchange plans nationwide, including every individual plan offered on the marketplaces in Maryland. A fact sheet on the impact of the rule can be found here.
"Abortion opponents are waging everything they've got as part of their massive war on our access to health care," said Karen Nelson, President and CEO, Planned Parenthood of Maryland, Inc. "The attacks and deceptions continue, but here's the truth: Abortion care is health care, and it should not be separated, "carved out", or treated differently from any other medical service. We will always fight to eliminate barriers and protect access to safe, legal abortion care and we will continue to provide people with the health care they need."
"This rule exists for one reason: to make it more difficult for people to access safe, legal abortion," said Alexis McGill Johnson, Acting President and CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "The administration itself admits this rule has no quantifiable benefit -- its sole purpose is to create extra red tape for millions of people across the country. We will not stand for this administration's attempt to shame people and keep them from accessing health care. All people deserve to be able to access abortion in this country, and to have their health insurance cover this safe, legal medical procedure. Planned Parenthood Federation of America is proud to stand with Planned Parenthood of Maryland, the ACLU and these brave individual consumers to fight back against this harmful rule in court. We will never stop fighting for our patients, or for the right of all people to access sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion, without shame or needless hurdles."
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
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
Senate Dems Aim to Stop Trump 'From Dragging This Country Into War' With Venezuela
"Congress needs to assert its constitutional power to prohibit use of military force," stressed one of the war powers resolution's co-sponsors.
Nov 06, 2025
As the Trump administration argues that it can continue its extrajudicial assassination spree of alleged drug runners on the high seas without congressional approval, the US Senate is set to vote Thursday afternoon on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block military action against Venezuela absent lawmakers' assent—as required by law.
Last month, Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced a resolution to block US military "hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress," citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and Congress' sole ability to declare war under the Constitution.
Posting on X ahead of Thursday's vote, Schiff said that the measure's co-sponsors "are forcing a bipartisan vote to block the administration from dragging this country into war in South America."
"Congress needs to assert its constitutional power to prohibit use of military force," he added.
Trump has PUBLICLY threatened land strikes in Venezuela—after already killing at least 66 unknown people on boats in the Caribbean—unnecessarily putting the U.S. at risk of war. Here’s what @schiff.senate.gov, Senator Paul, and I are doing about it:youtube.com/shorts/TQKsF...
[image or embed]
— Senator Tim Kaine (@kaine.senate.gov) November 6, 2025 at 8:29 AM
Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy, a Washington, DC-based think tank, said Thursday that President Donald Trump "talks about himself as a historic peacemaker while continuing to order reckless military strikes and threatening to invade countries around the world."
"His actions violate both the Constitution and his own promises to be an anti-war president," he added.
This is the second time Kaine and Schiff have tried to introduce a Venezuela war powers resolution. Last month, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman joined his GOP colleagues in voting down a similar measure. Paul joined Democrats and Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) in voting for the legislation.
Since September 2, Trump has overseen 16 reported attacks on vessels allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean off the coast of South America, killing at least 67 people. Venezuelan and Colombian officials, as well as relatives of some of the slain men, assert that some victims were fishers and condemned the attacks as war crimes.
Trump—who deployed an armada of warships and thousands of troops off the coast of Venezuela—has also approved covert CIA action and, along with senior administration officials, threatened to attack targets on land inside the oil-rich country, which has long been subjected to US meddling, regime change, and deadly sanctions. Late last month, the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro said that his country’s security forces captured a group of CIA-aligned mercenaries engaged in a "false-flag attack" against the nation.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—was enacted during the Nixon administration at the tail end of the US war on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos to empower Congress to check the president’s war-making authority. The law requires the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours and mandates that lawmakers must approve troop deployments after 60 days.
That 60-day door closed on Monday. However, according to The Washington Post, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel T. Elliott Gaiser told lawmakers this week that Trump is not bound by the War Powers Resolution, as the administration does not believe that the boat strikes legally meet the definition of "hostilities" because the victims of the attacks aren't fighting back.
The dubious argument that acts of US military aggression aren't hostilities isn't new—the Obama administration asserted similar immunity from the War Powers Resolution when it decided to attack Libya in 2011, leading to the ouster of longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi and over a decade of enduring conflict and division.
As Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal adviser who is now a senior official at the International Crisis Group, wrote for Just Security this week:
There are many flaws with the Trump administration’s reported interpretation of hostilities. As indicated in the legislative history, Congress understood the term “hostilities” to apply broadly, more broadly than “armed conflict.” The Obama administration’s prior attempt to restrictively interpret the term garnered strong bipartisan congressional opposition...
That the Trump administration would resort to creative lawyering to circumvent the limits of the War Powers Resolution is hardly a surprise... It nonetheless is yet another legal abuse and arrogation of power by the executive. And it is a power grab in the service of killing people outside the law based solely on the president’s own say-so.
"Congress needs to push back against this attempt by the White House to further encroach upon its constitutional prerogatives on the use of military force," Finucane added. "The legislative branch should reject the executive’s strained legal interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, including possibly in legislation. Congress should also continue efforts to halt these killings at sea and block an unlawful attack on Venezuela."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Long-Overdue': Pelosi to Retire After Four Decades in Congress
Pelosi's progressive challenger called it the start of a "generational shift" in the Democratic Party.
Nov 06, 2025
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calling it quits after nearly four decades in Congress. On Thursday, the longtime Democratic leader announced that her 20th term in Congress will be her last and that she will not run for reelection in 2026.
"For decades, I've cherished the privilege of representing our magnificent city in the United States Congress," Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a video tribute to her constituents in San Francisco. "That is why I want you, my fellow San Franciscans, to be the first to know I will not be seeking reelection to Congress. With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative."
The departure of the 85-year-old Pelosi, the first and only woman to ever hold the speaker's gavel, comes at a critical crossroads for the Democratic Party, when the brand of corporate-friendly centrism she came to embody faces a crisis of credibility after failing to withstand the return of President Donald Trump, and an increasingly muscular progressive flank seeks to reshape the party in its image.
"Starting out as a progressive, Pelosi has steadily drifted to the center over the decades, coinciding with her rise up the party ranks, the gradual rise of her net worth, and even San Francisco’s transformation into an unaffordable playground for the rich," wrote Branko Marcetic in Jacobin when she stepped down from the role as the Democratic leader in 2022.
Once a proponent of universal healthcare, Pelosi will likely be remembered as one of the foremost obstacles to achieving Medicare for All, which she fought tooth and nail to block, with the support of the health insurance industry, during her final four years as speaker.
As the climate crisis grows more urgent and increasingly destructive, Pelosi will be remembered as the person who derided the nascent "Green New Deal" effort to transition America's economy toward renewables as "the green dream or whatever they call it."
As the Democratic Party's base reckons with its near-total shift against Israel following more than two years of genocide in Gaza, Pelosi—who previously backed funding for the Iraq War against the grassroots of her party—will be remembered as the person who, suggested that Democrats protesting for a ceasefire were spreading “[Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s message” and should be investigated by the FBI.
As Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) rampages through American cities—including her beloved San Francisco—tormenting immigrants and citizens alike, Pelosi will be remembered for her role bending to Republican demands during the last government shutdown in 2019, to hand the agency more funding as part of a power play against the progressive "Squad" members who wanted to see the agency abolished or defunded.
And at a time when Americans struggle with a surging cost of living, Pelosi will be remembered as one of the people who profited most from her position at the heights of power. In 2024, she and her husband raked in more than $38 million from stock trading, more than any other member of Congress in either party, and remained a persistent defender of the humble elected representative's right to use their immense wealth of insider knowledge for personal gain.
Pelosi's retirement announcement comes at a moment when the Democratic establishment, particularly its congressional leaders—Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Pelosi's successor, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)—face historic unpopularity with their own voters.
A survey published by Pew Research at the beginning of October found that 59% of self-identified Democrats disapprove of the job their leaders are doing. A previous poll from Reuters/Ipsos found that Democrats believe there was a large gulf between their governing priorities, like universal healthcare, affordable childcare, and higher taxes on the rich, and those of the party.
Pelosi's announcement comes just two days after the most significant triumph in decades for the progressive movement she tried to crush, with the democratic socialist state assemblyman Zohran Mamdani being comfortably elected as New York City's next mayor despite Pelosi's refusal to endorse.
"This is an appropriate response to Mamdani’s win," New Republic writer Indigo Oliver said of Pelosi's retirement on social media. "Chuck Schumer should follow Pelosi’s lead."
Even prior to her retirement becoming official, momentum was building behind a more progressive candidate to take Pelosi's seat as well: Saikat Chakrabarti, the former chief of staff for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who some have described as a "clone" of Mamdani, though he too has been met with criticism for his coziness with San Francisco's powerful tech sector.
"Pelosi’s retirement marks the end of an era in San Francisco politics and the beginning of a long-overdue generational shift," said an email from the Chakrabarti campaign.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Open Bigotry': ADL Condemned for 'Mamdani Monitor' Aimed at Rooting Out Criticism of Israel
The initiative appeared to be intended to prevent "people who are critical of Israel from getting hired by city government," said one critic.
Nov 06, 2025
Advocates denounced an initiative launched by the Anti-Defamation League in the wake of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's electoral victory as "awful scaremongering," as the group founded more than a century ago as a civil rights organization announced it would be monitoring Mamdani's government for antisemitism—which the ADL has explicitly equated with anti-Israel sentiment.
The ADL, whose executive director, Jonathan Greenblatt, earlier this year falsely accused Mamdani of refusing to visit synagogues during his campaign, said its "Mamdani Monitor" would "track and monitor policies and personnel appointments of the incoming Mamdani administration and protect Jewish residents across the five boroughs during a period of unprecedented antisemitism in New York City."
Hate crimes driven by both antisemitism and Islamophobia have been on the rise in recent years in New York City. Mamdani has pledged that as mayor, he will work to represent all New Yorkers regardless of religion or ethnicity, and in his victory speech on Tuesday he said: "We will build a City Hall that stands steadfast alongside Jewish New Yorkers and does not waver in the fight against the scourge of antisemitism."
He repeated that commitment on Wednesday after a drawing of a swastika was found at a Jewish day school in Brooklyn, saying: "This is a disgusting and heartbreaking act of antisemitism, and it has no place in our beautiful city. As mayor, I will always stand steadfast with our Jewish neighbors to root the scourge of antisemitism out of our city."
About a third of Jewish people who voted in the election supported Mamdani, many actively campaigned on his behalf and joined him in his criticism of Israel, and a striking poll released by the Washington Post last month found that more than 60% of Jewish Americans agree with the mayor-elect's assessment that Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza since it began bombarding the exclave in October 2023.
Launching a project preemptively accusing Mamdani of bringing harm to Jewish New Yorkers, said journalist Sana Saeed, "is extremely—and expectedly—racist. There is no other way this should be talked about."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was among those pointing out that the ADL "has never established a special monitor to harass any other elected official, including politicians who have actually expressed real bigotry against Jewish Americans."
"Singling out Mayor-elect Mamdani is an act of hypocrisy and anti-Muslim bigotry, pure and simple," said the group. "We strongly condemn the ADL’s increasingly unhinged, desperate attacks on American Muslims and other advocates for Palestinian human rights, and we call on New York community leaders to do the same.”
Dylan Williams of the Center for International Policy also called the "Mamdani Monitor" a display of "open bigotry" and noted that no such tracker has been established to keep tabs on the Trump administration, which has joined the ADL in attacking pro-Palestinian protesters as antisemitic while elevating numerous officials to top White House roles despite their ties to groups that espouse anti-Jewish views.
During the campaign, the ADL joined former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani's top opponent in the race who ran as an independent after losing the Democratic primary in June, in attacking Mamdani for stating that the phrase "globalize the intifada" is not a call for violence but rather a demand to end Israel's occupation and apartheid policies in the Palestinian territories.
In response to the ADL's initiative targeting his incoming administration, Mamdani reiterated his commitment for standing against antisemitism and expressed doubt that Greenblatt will lead the group's new effort "honestly," considering his past lies about Mamdani's campaign.
"Anyone is free to catalog the actions of our administration," he said. "I have some doubts in Jonathan's ability to do so honestly, given that he previously said that I have not visited any synagogues only to have to correct himself."
A ‘Mamdani Monitor’?? Zohran RESPONDS to the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt for vowing to “track” his admin for antisemitism.
“I have some doubts in Jonathan's ability to do so honestly, given that he previously said I had not visited any synagogues only to have to correct himself.” pic.twitter.com/rWdaqh45nz
— Zeteo (@zeteo_news) November 5, 2025
While the ADL still attempts to portray itself as a leading group fighting against anti-Jewish hate—despite its refusal to condemn billionaire Trump megadonor Elon Musk's apparent Nazi salute at an inauguration event in January, and its recent removal of a commitment to "Protect Civil Rights" from its website—Yonah Lieberman of the Jewish-led Palestinian rights group IfNotNow said the Mamdani Monitor "should be the final straw to any liberal that has ever supported them."
The ADL is "treating the NYC mayor’s office like a hate group—because the next mayor is Muslim and believes Israel should follow international law," said Lieberman.
Peter Sterne of City & State NY added that the ADL's new feature appeared to be "its own version of Canary Mission"—the anonymously run pro-Israel website that identifies and targets pro-Palestinian students and professors.
The ADL's aim, said Sterne, appears to be "to prevent people who are critical of Israel from getting hired by city government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular