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 GOP Kills Bill That Would've Reversed $10 Billion Trump Corporate Tax Break
Sen. Ron Wyden called the tax giveaway "indefensible at a time when so many Americans are getting battered by inflation and barely staying afloat."
Feb 10, 2026
Nearly all US Senate Republicans on Tuesday voted to block a resolution that would have reversed a Trump administration regulatory change set to give some of the country's richest companies a $10.3 billion tax break.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution was spearheaded by Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Angus King (I-Maine). The vote on whether to advance it was 47-51. The only Republican to vote in favor was the other Mainer, Susan Collins, who just confirmed she is running for another term, despite two strong Democratic challengers.
In a statement after the vote, Wyden tied the target of his resolution—an Internal Revenue Service guidance undermining the corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT)—to the sweeping budget package that GOP lawmakers passed and President Donald Trump signed last summer, which also featured significant tax breaks for the rich.
"The ink is barely dry on the megabill Trump and Republicans passed to give $1 trillion in new tax breaks to giant corporations, and now his Treasury Department is throwing another $10 billion handout to the most profitable corporations in America," Wyden said.
"The pattern we're seeing is that the Trump administration gives big corporations and ultrawealthy donors whatever tax benefits they want the second they walk through the door at the Treasury Department, but that doesn't mean the Senate has to allow this giveaway to happen," he stressed. "Stuffing $10 billion into the coffers of corporations that are already raking in enormous profits is indefensible at a time when so many Americans are getting battered by inflation and barely staying afloat."
King similarly declared that "it's downright unfair to give billions in tax relief to America's most successful corporations when Maine people are struggling to afford their prescription drugs, childcare, and groceries." He described their resolution as "a commonsense step toward a fairer tax policy that prioritizes people over profits and levels the playing field."
Although the defeat was predictable, economic justice advocates lambasted Senate Republicans for killing the resolution.
Americans for Tax Fairness executive director David Kass said in a statement that "after passing historic tax giveaways for billionaires and big business through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA), blowing up the deficit, and cutting billions from critical healthcare and nutrition programs to pay for it, Trump and his GOP allies in the Senate are taking every opportunity to ensure economic elites can avoid paying their fair share."
"This guidance would effectively circumvent Congress and create numerous opportunities for corporate tax evasion while increasing the deficit and national debt, thus creating more imbalance in a tax code that already favors the wealthy and large corporations," Kass said. "Sen. Wyden is right to lead the charge to stop this guidance—average Americans should not be forced to subsidize some of the most profitable companies on Earth."
Like the Senate, the House of Representatives is also narrowly controlled by the GOP. Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, noted in a Tuesday blog post that "even if lawmakers of both parties had sufficient backbone to retake the legislative power that the executive branch has usurped, President Trump would veto such a bill."
"But as a matter of educating lawmakers and the public, the recently rejected measure was a success given that tax legislation (such as this resolution) up for a vote in Congress usually gets an official budget score from Congress' revenue estimators at the Joint Committee on Taxation," he wrote. "And in this case, that reveals that this unilateral corporate tax cut from the Trump administration will cost $10 billion over a decade unless it is reversed."
"The Senate's failure to ratify Wyden's resolution may be only the opening salvo for members of Congress who want to retake the power given them under the Constitution to make tax law," Gardner suggested. "The regulation in question is not the first, and surely not the last, attempt by President Trump to unilaterally cut corporate taxes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Khanna Names 6 Men 'Likely Incriminated' by Epstein Files That 'DOJ Hid for No Apparent Reason'
“The reality is that Donald Trump’s FBI scrubbed these files in March, long before Thomas Massie and I passed the Epstein Transparency Act," said the California progressive.
Feb 10, 2026
Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna on Tuesday read aloud on the House floor the names of half a dozen men he said are "likely incriminated" in files concerning Jeffrey Epstein, the late convicted child sex criminal and former friend of President Donald Trump.
“Yesterday, Congressman [Thomas] Massie [R-Ky.] and I went to the Department of Justice to read the unredacted Epstein files," Khanna (Calif.) said. "We spent about two hours there, and we learned that 70 to 80% of the files are still redacted."
"In fact, there were six wealthy, powerful men that the DOJ hid for no apparent reason,” the congressman continued. “When Congressman Massie and I pointed this out to the DOJ, they acknowledged their mistake, and now they have revealed the identity of these six powerful men."
“These men are: Salvatore Nuara; Zurab Mikeladze; Leonic Leonov; Nicola Caputo; Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, CEO of Dubai Ports World; and billionaire businessman Leslie Wexner, who was labeled as a ‘co-conspirator,’ by the FBI.” Khanna said.
“Now my question is: Why did it take Thomas Massie and me going to the Justice Department to get these six men’s identities to become public?" Khanna asked. "And if we found six men that they were hiding in two hours, imagine how many men they are covering up for in those three million files.”
Last year, Congress passed Khanna and Massie's Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the public release of all relevant documents within 30 days. The legislation also empowered Attorney General Pam Bondi to redact large amounts of information that critics fear could include material that incriminates Trump, who Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said Tuesday is mentioned "more than a million times" in the unredacted Epstein files.
Democratic lawmakers and Massie have accused the DOJ of violating the law by incomplete disclosure and blowing the legal deadline for publishing the documents.
Major update: Trump mentioned in the “unredacted” Epstein Files more than one million times.FBI scrubbed files before giving them to the DOJ, so many “unredacted” files remain redacted.Khanna reads the names of six men on the House floorHead of Ohio State gynecology received money from Epstein
[image or embed]
— Aaron Parnas (@aaronparnas.bsky.social) February 10, 2026 at 11:13 AM
“The story gets worse,” Khanna said Tuesday. “The reality is that Donald Trump’s FBI scrubbed these files in March, long before Thomas Massie and I passed the Epstein Transparency Act... That means the survivors’ statement to the FBI naming rich and powerful men who went to Epstein’s island... they’re all hidden.”
None of the six named men had responded to Khanna's action as of late Tuesday afternoon. A legal representative for Wexner previously told the Associated Press that prosecutors had informed the 88-year-old billionaire that he was “neither a co-conspirator nor a target in any respect,” and that he cooperated with investigators.
The names of the six men were entered into the Congressional Record as part of Khanna's remarks. Inclusion in the Epstein files does not by itself prove or even imply any criminal wrongdoing.
“It’s time to begin with accountability for the Epstein class," Khanna said during his remarks Tuesday. "Hold them in front of Congress, those people who visited the island or did business with Epstein after he was a convicted pedophile. Investigate them. Prosecute them. And let us return to democratic accountability in the United States of America."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Another Boat Bombing, House Progressives Demand End to 'Donroe Doctrine'
"We need to finally leave the Monroe Doctrine behind and pursue a foreign policy grounded in mutual respect and shared prosperity," said Rep. Nydia Velázquez, introducing the New Good Neighbor Act with Rep. Delia Ramirez.
Feb 10, 2026
With the death toll from President Donald Trump's boat bombings of alleged drug traffickers now at 130 after a Monday strike, a pair of progressive congresswomen on Tuesday called for ending the Monroe Doctrine and establishing a "New Good Neighbor" policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean.
In 1823, then-President James Monroe "declared the Western Hemisphere off limits to powerful countries in Europe," NPR noted last month. "Fast forward, and President Trump is reviving the Monroe Doctrine to justify intervening in places like Venezuela, and threatening further action in other parts of Latin America and Greenland."
Trump's version of the policy has been dubbed the "Donroe Doctrine." After US forces boarded the Aquila II, a Venezuela-linked oil tanker, in the Indian Ocean, David Adler, co-general coordinator of Progressive International, said Monday that "the Donroe Doctrine is not simply a vision for the hemisphere. It is a doctrine of global domination."
In response to the president's recent actions—from his boat bombings and pardon of convicted drug trafficker and former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, to his oil blockade of Venezuela and raid that overthrew the South American country's president, Nicolás Maduro—US Reps. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) and Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) introduced the New Good Neighbor Act.
"This administration's aggressive stance toward Latin America makes this resolution critical," said Velázquez in a statement. "Their 'Donroe Doctrine' is simply a more grotesque version of the interventionist policies that have failed us for two centuries."
"The United States and Latin America face shared challenges in drug trafficking, migration, and climate change," she continued. "We can only solve these through real partnership, not coercion. We need to finally leave the Monroe Doctrine behind and pursue a foreign policy grounded in mutual respect and shared prosperity."
Ramirez similarly said that "for more than 200 years, the United States has used the Monroe Doctrine to justify a paternalistic, damaging approach to relations with Latin America and the Caribbean. As a result, the legacy of our nation's foreign policy in those regions is political instability, deep poverty, extreme migration, and colonialism. It is well past time we change our approach."
"We must recognize our interconnectedness and admit that the Monroe Doctrine undermines the partnership needed to confront the complex challenges of this century," she argued. "We must become better neighbors. That is why I am proud to join Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez to develop an approach to foreign policy that advances our collective interests and builds a stronger coalition throughout the Americas and the rest of the world."
The original Good Neighbor Policy was adopted by former President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, in an attempt at reverse US imperialism in Latin America. The aim was to curb military interventions, center respect for national sovereignty, and prioritize diplomacy and trade.
As the sponsors' offices summarized, the new resolution calls for:
- The Department of State to formally confirm that the Monroe Doctrine is no longer a part of United States policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean;
- The federal government to develop a "New Good Neighbor" policy in place of the Monroe Doctrine;
- Developing a new approach to promoting economic development;
- The termination of all unilateral economic sanctions imposed through executive orders, and working with Congress to terminate all unilateral sanctions, such as the Cuba embargo, mandated by law;
- New legislation to trigger the suspension of assistance to a government whenever there is an extraconstitutional transfer of power;
- Prompt declassification of all United States government archives that relate to past coups d’état, dictatorships, and periods in the history of Latin American and Caribbean countries characterized by a high rate of human rights crimes perpetrated by security forces;
- Collaboration with Latin American and Caribbean governments on a far-reaching reform to the Organization of American States; and
- Supporting democratic reforms to the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and other international financial institutions.
The measure isn't likely to advance in a Republican-controlled Congress that has failed to pass various war powers resolutions that would rein in Trump's boat strikes and aggression toward Venezuela, but it offers Democrats an opportunity to make their foreign policy positions clear going into the midterms—in which Velázquez, who is 72, has decided not to seek reelection.
So far, it is backed by Democratic Reps. Greg Casar (Texas), Yvette Clarke (NY), Jesús "Chuy" García (Ill.), Sylvia García (Texas), Adelita Grijalva (Ariz.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Jonathan Jackson (Ill.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Summer Lee (Pa.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Lateefah Simon (Calif.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.). Like Velázquez, Chuy García and Schakowsky are also retiring after this term.
Leaders from organizations including the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), the United Methodist Church's board, and We Are CASA also backed the bill and commended the sponsors for, as Cavan Kharrazian of Demand Progress, put it "advancing a new framework for US engagement in the region grounded in mutual respect, sovereignty, and cooperation rather than coercion or threats."
Alex Main, CEPR's director of international policy, stressed that "Trump is waging a new offensive against Latin America and the Caribbean—conducting illegal and unprovoked military attacks and extrajudicial killings and brazenly intervening in other countries' domestic affairs in an undisguised effort to exert control over the region's resources and politics."
"But while Trump’s actions are especially egregious, they are just the latest chapter of a centuries-old story of US military political and economic interference that has subverted democracy and fueled instability and human rights crimes across the hemisphere," Main continued. "It is in the interest of the US to reject this doctrine of unilateral domination and chart a new course for US-Latin American relations—to treat our Latin American siblings as vecinos, not vassals."
Sharing yet another brief black-and-white video on social media, US Southern Command on Monday announced a "lethal kinetic strike on a vessel" allegedly "transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific." SOUTHCOM added that "two narco-terrorists were killed and one survived the strike," which prompted a search for the survivor.
Legal experts and various members of Congress have described the killings as murder on the high seas. Reiterating that position in response to the latest bombing disclosure, Amnesty International USA urged Americans to pressure lawmakers to act.
"US military helpfully publishes evidence of its mass murder of civilians at sea," said Ben Saul, a professor at Australia's University of Sydney and the United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. "Over to you, US Department of Justice, to do your job and bring murder suspects to justice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular