

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.

A federal district court ruled today that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must temporarily suspend enforcement of a restriction on a medication used for early abortion that subjects patients to COVID-19 risks by forcing them to make an unnecessary trip to their health care provider just to pick up the medication and sign a form. The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a coalition of medical experts and reproductive justice advocates, led by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
At issue in this case is a restriction on an FDA-approved prescription drug, mifepristone, which is used in combination with another drug, misoprostol, to safely and effectively end early pregnancies and treat early miscarriage. Even during the pandemic, the FDA continued to require patients to travel to a hospital, clinic, or medical office to pick up the mifepristone, prohibiting patients who had already been evaluated by a clinician (using telehealth or at a prior in-person visit) from filling their mifepristone prescription by mail. The requirement imposes unnecessary COVID-19 risks and other burdens by forcing patients to travel to one of these clinical settings solely to pick up the medication and sign a form, even though, based on safety data, the FDA already permits patients to swallow the pill later at home.
The court issued a preliminary injunction today that blocks the FDA from enforcing this requirement when mifepristone is used for early abortion care, though the court did not suspend the restriction in cases where the medication is used as part of miscarriage treatment. The injunction will remain in place until at least 30 days after the end of the federal government's declared public health emergency, which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has indicated it intends to renew later this month.
The court's ruling is particularly important for communities of color and low-income communities, who make up the majority of impacted patients and who are suffering severe complications and dying from COVID-19 at disproportionately high rates.
"Today's decision means that the Trump administration can no longer force patients to incur unnecessary COVID-19 risks as the price of getting abortion care." said Julia Kaye, staff attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "Like so many of the administration's actions, its refusal to suspend this irrational restriction during the pandemic -- despite urgent requests from the nation's leading medical authorities -- was particularly dangerous for people of color and low-income communities, who are disproportionately suffering severe harm from COVID-19. We look forward to a day when federal reproductive health care policy is grounded in science, not animus, and this medically baseless requirement is lifted once and for all."
The ruling comes after the FDA ignored requests from leading medical authorities, including ACOG, asking the agency to lift this restriction. By contrast, the FDA and other federal agencies have suspended in-person requirements for other medications during the pandemic. In addition to the plaintiffs in this case, which represent more than 60,000 obstetricians-gynecologists as well as the chairs of obstetrics and gynecology departments at nearly 150 universities, other leading medical groups, including the American Medical Association, filed a brief in support of plaintiffs' request to lift the restriction.
Of the more than 20,000 drug products the FDA regulates, the mifepristone product used to end an early pregnancy or provide miscarriage care is the only medication the FDA requires patients to pick up in-person even though they may self-administer it at home without clinical supervision. When used for purposes other than pregnancy termination, the FDA permits mifepristone to be mailed directly to a patient's home in higher doses and quantities.
The medical community has opposed these restrictions on mifepristone for years, as they have no medical basis. In addition to the case decided today, the ACLU has another case challenging a broader range of FDA restrictions on medication abortion care that was filed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. More information on that challenge can be found here.
The following are statements from the plaintiffs in this case:
Eva Chalas, M.D., FACOG, FACS, president of ACOG:
"Suspending the REMS requirement for mifepristone for early pregnancy termination represents a necessary step forward in our collective work toward health equity during this unprecedented time of pandemic. Today's ruling represents a victory for patients, who should not have to face the additional burden of increased COVID-19 exposure as a condition of receiving their prescribed mifepristone. It also represents a victory for the dedicated clinicians who are working to provide needed care without unnecessary exposure of patients, their families and the members of the healthcare team, to the novel coronavirus. Nonetheless, we are disappointed that the injunction issued by the Court does not apply to women experiencing miscarriage and the clinicians treating them. We will continue our advocacy to seek removal of these restrictions during the pandemic."
Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective:
"The FDA's medically unjustified requirement has long stood in the way of communities of color getting the reproductive health care we need -- and now, during the pandemic, it is putting us at unnecessary risk for COVID-19. Today's ruling recognized the simple truth that people should not be forced to choose between getting the care they need and protecting their health. This Administration should stop spending its time trying to make it harder for people of color to get the medical care we need, and instead trust us to make our own reproductive decisions and remove barriers that violate or prohibit our human right to self-determination."
David Chelmow, M.D., president of the Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology:
"As Chairs of Ob-Gyn departments at medical schools and hospitals across the country, we know how critical it is for patients to get the care they need without making unnecessary trips to their medical providers. Today, science prevailed over politics and the federal court ruled that patients are now able to access early abortion care during the pandemic without unnecessary risk. We are disappointed that the Court did not grant the same access to patients needing mifepristone for miscarriage care. We ask the FDA to listen to the medical experts and lift these baseless restrictions once and for all."
Jason Matuszak, M.D., FAAFP, President of New York State Academy of Family Physicians:
"In New York, we learned early on how critical it is to avoid unnecessary travel. Yet the FDA has insisted, with no medical justification, on requiring patients to come in person to a physician's office just to pick up a pill they are already permitted to self-administer at home. We are grateful that, as a result of today's ruling, medication abortion patients will no longer have to expose themselves to unnecessary medical risk just to get the care they need."
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 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it reserves the right to "respond to any ceasefire violation by the aggressor US army."
The Iranian military said early Tuesday that it shot down an American Reaper drone after the Trump administration launched what it characterized as "self-defense strikes" on southern Iran, further complicating efforts to secure a diplomatic resolution to the illegal US-Israeli war.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said in a statement, carried by Iranian news agencies, that it downed an MQ-9 Reaper drone and "fired upon an RQ-4 drone and an intruding F-35 fighter jet." The IRGC cast its actions as defensive and said it has the right to "respond to any ceasefire violation by the aggressor US army."
Late Monday, shortly after President Donald Trump claimed peace talks were progressing, the US Central Command announced that the American military "conducted self-defense strikes in southern Iran today to protect our troops from threats posed by Iranian forces." The strikes, according to CENTCOM, targeted "missile launch sites and Iranian boats attempting to emplace mines."
Hamidreza Azizi, a foreign policy expert and visiting fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, noted that the Iranian side provided "a different—and more detailed—account of what happened," saying the "exchange unfolded in several rounds over roughly 24 hours."
"It reportedly began when US forces attacked two IRGC naval boats, killing four Iranian military personnel," Azizi said, citing Iranian sources. "Iran responded with anti-ship missiles targeting US vessels. Iranian air defense systems then shot down at least one—some reports say three—US drones operating in the area."
Azizi continued:
The US subsequently struck Iranian anti-ship missile launch sites and air defense systems. Iran responded again, firing multiple anti-ship missiles at U.S. vessels in the Arabian Sea.
Independent verification of these claims—including the casualty figures and the extent of damage on both sides—remains limited. The competing narratives follow the familiar pattern in which each side frames its actions as a response to the other’s aggression.
The more significant point is that the exchange has now moved through multiple rounds of attack and counter-attack within a single 24-hour period. That pattern is harder to contain than a single incident. It also raises the question of how this cycle interacts with the indirect negotiations currently underway.
Iran has publicly pushed back against Trump's claim of an imminent peace deal, though a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry told reporters on Monday that "it is correct to say that we have reached a conclusion on a large portion of the issues under discussion."
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that "the two sides are working toward a memorandum of understanding that would end the fighting and lift constraints on shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz over 30 days while setting the stage for talks about Iran’s nuclear program in a second phase."
"Relief from sanctions would depend on progress, a senior U.S. administration official said Sunday," the Journal added. "The US is seeking clearer commitments from Iran about its nuclear program up front, while Iranian negotiators are pressing for details from the US about relief from sanctions and asset freezes, mediators said."
Trump declared in a social media post Monday evening that Iran's enriched uranium "will either be immediately turned over to the United States to be brought home and destroyed or, preferably, in conjunction and coordination with the Islamic Republic of Iran, destroyed in place or, at another acceptable location, with the Atomic Energy Commission, or its equivalent, being witness to this process and event."
Iran has not formally agreed to such terms.
Samir Puri, a visiting lecturer in war studies at Kings College London, told Al Jazeera that the new US strikes on Iran create an “extremely precarious situation" for negotiators.
“Fighting and talking at the same time is quite a common thing in a negotiation at the end of a conflict that has been very intense and hasn’t been resolved,” said Puri. "The key... is to keep talking and to not allow the talks to collapse by these escalations—because these may not be the last escalations.
“What we don’t know is whether this is the storm before the calm or the calm before the storm,” he continued. "We don’t know whether these negotiations need to be sustained and to absorb these sorts of escalations for days, for weeks, for months. It could be a very long negotiation process still to come."
"The delay in detecting the outbreak means that we are now playing catch-up with a very fast-moving epidemic."
World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned Monday that the swiftly spreading Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda "will get worse before it gets better," as a deadly delay in detecting infections has responders to the epidemic "playing catch-up."
"The outbreak is spreading rapidly," Tedros said during a virtual ministerial meeting on the matter. "So far, 101 cases have been confirmed in DRC, with 10 confirmed deaths. But we know the epidemic in DRC is much larger. There are now more than 900 suspected cases and 220 suspected deaths."
"Countries bordering DRC are at especially high risk and should take immediate action," he asserted. "In Uganda, there are five confirmed cases and one death."
Tedros pointed out that "there are several aspects of this outbreak that make it especially challenging."
"First, the delay in detecting the outbreak means that we are now playing catch-up with a very fast-moving epidemic," he said. "We are urgently scaling up operations, but at the moment, the epidemic is outpacing us."
"Second, as you know, the provinces of Ituri and North Kivu are highly insecure, with intensified fighting in recent months, causing more than 100,000 people to be newly displaced," the WHO chief continued. "There is also significant distrust of outside authorities among the local population. In the past week, there have been two security incidents at health facilities."
"WHO is fully committed to working under the leadership of the governments of DRC and Uganda, side by side with Africa [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and all other partners," Tedros added. "We will not rest until we bring this outbreak under control."
Ebola—which typically kills between 25% and 90% of infected people, depending upon the strain of the virus and quality of available medical care—causes widespread and often catastrophic damage to the body’s blood vessels, immune system, and organs.
Critics say US President Donald Trump's ideologically driven decision to withdraw the US from the WHO, his administration's dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and reduced funding for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's global public health efforts have adversely affected the response to the current Ebola epidemic, compared with 2014 and 2019 outbreaks.
After US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week that the WHO was "a little late" in identifying new Ebola infections, Tedros retorted that "we don’t replace the country’s work, we only support them," and suggested that Rubio's comments could be rooted in "a lack of understanding" of the agency and countries' responsibilities.
While Rubio said that “our number-one objective on Ebola, before anything else... has to be, we can’t have it affect the United States,” public health experts warn that Trump administration actions could make it more likely that the virus will make its way to the country.
There is currently no confirmed CDC director, Food and Drug Administration commissioner, or surgeon general.
Taking aim at Trump's evisceration of key public health agencies and programs, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said last week: “Ebola does not wait for bureaucratic reorganizations. It spreads when surveillance systems are weakened, health workers are laid off, clinics lack protective equipment, and communities lose the trusted partners who help detect and contain outbreaks before they become public health emergencies."
"This is the perfect storm President Trump created," she continued. "He recklessly dismantled USAID, withheld and slashed other United States assistance to the region, fired critical staff, and created global health chaos. This is not efficiency. It is dangerous neglect."
"The United States spent years building the relationships, supply chains, laboratories, and community health networks that help stop deadly diseases at their source," DeLauro added. "The Trump administration tore into that capacity and now wants to pretend the consequences were unforeseeable.”
"We have reached a conclusion on a large portion of the issues under discussion," said an Iranian spokesperson. "But to say that this means the signing of an agreement is imminent—no one can make such a claim.”
Officials in Tehran on Monday swatted down President Donald Trump's assertion that an agreement to end the nearly three-month Iran War was imminent, citing frequently shifting US positions and Israeli "sabotage" as obstacles during ongoing talks.
“It is correct to say that we have reached a conclusion on a large portion of the issues under discussion," Iran Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said during a press briefing. "But to say that this means the signing of an agreement is imminent—no one can make such a claim.”
Trump tempered his own Saturday claim that a peace deal had "been largely negotiated" with Tehran, "subject to finalization."
"Negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran are proceeding nicely!" the president said Monday on his Truth Social platform. "It will only be a Great Deal for all or, no Deal at all—Back to the Battlefront and shooting, but bigger and stronger than ever before—And nobody wants that!"
A 14-point memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran reportedly contains a ceasefire and 30-day negotiation period for a broader agreement, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, easing or lifting the US naval blockade on Iran, unfreezing Iranian state assets abroad, relief from US sanctions, and restrictions on Iranian nuclear development.
Naming countries including Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan, Trump wrote that "after all the work done by the United States to try and pull this very complex puzzle together, it should be mandatory that all of these Countries, at a minimum, simultaneously sign onto the Abraham Accords," the US-brokered normalization pacts between the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, Kazakhstan, and Israel that the Palestinian writer Karim Kattan called "a fever dream of dictators."
Trump suggested that Iran could also normalize relations with Israel by signing the Abraham Accords and said that "it would be an Honor to have them also be part of this unparalleled World Coalition."
However, Baghaei threw cold water on Trump's optimism, stressing Monday that “the focus of the negotiations is on ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon," and that this critical point is "one of the core elements of understanding in any agreement."
What negotiators aren't discussing at this time, according to both sides, is ending Iran's nuclear development.
"The focus of the negotiations is on ending the war, and at this stage we are not discussing nuclear issues," Baghaei said.
Also not under current discussion is the future management of the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranian-controlled maritime chokepoint through which around 20% of the world's oil is shipped.
"How this region should be managed concerns the littoral states," Baghaei said, referring to Iran and Oman. "We understand that the security of the Strait of Hormuz is a concern for the entire world."
Baghaei affirmed that negotiations on the 14-point memorandum of understanding would continue over the next two months, but that the US blockade of Iranian ports and shipping "must stop."
According to Iranian state media outlet Press TV, Baghaei "criticized the inconsistency in US policymaking, saying contradictory positions within short periods complicate negotiations."
A major sticking point in the talks is Iran's insistence that any agreement to end hostilities must also include an end to Israel's attacks on Lebanon, which have killed or wounded more than 12,000 people, according to officials there. After the current Pakistan-brokered ceasefire took effect on April 7, Israel responded by escalating its war on Lebanon, killing or wounding more than 1,400 people, many of them civilians, over a 24-hour period.
Baghaei said Monday that "one should expect nothing from Israel except the sabotage of any process."
It's not just Israel; Iranian, Pakistani, and Omani negotiators have accused US officials of blowing up previous Iran peace talks when they were on the verge of success.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed Sunday that while he supports the US effort to end the war, "President Trump and I agreed that any final agreement with Iran must eliminate the nuclear danger."
Israeli and US intelligence agencies have said for decades—including under Trump—that Iran is not trying to build nuclear weapons and stopped trying to do so in the early 2000s.
Pro-war Republican US lawmakers joined many Israeli leaders in both government and the opposition in expressing alarm over a potential peace deal that is widely viewed as a major win for Iran.
"Details of the deal between the United States and Iran are so disturbing," Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid said Monday in West Jerusalem. "The deal is bad for Israel, bad for the region, bad for the citizens of Iran."
"Netanyahu has failed to achieve every single one of the war's objectives as he himself defined them," he added.
Some US Congressional Democrats also said the outcome of the illegal US-Israeli war of choice is likely to favor Iran, even as airstrikes have killed or wounded more than 30,000 Iranians, many of them civilians, according to the country's Ministry of Health.
"If this deal with Iran is real, I will welcome it because every day this insane war goes on, America gets weaker," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Sunday. "The priority is to end the war—now. But make no mistake: These are Iran’s terms. Our nation emerges humiliated."
"The deal is basically this: We give Iran billions to get back to where we were before the war. And reports suggest the deal might codify Iran’s right to control the strait," he continued. "There are reports there may be a tiny nuclear concession from Iran in the deal and if so, great. But I doubt it—they are most likely postponing all the nuclear issues."
"But a promise to ship out enriched uranium (the reported concession) was also in [Former President Barack] Obama’s deal (as well as a lot of other things Trump will never get)," the senator noted, referring to the landmark Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—also known as the Iran nuclear deal—that Trump unilaterally abrogated during his first term.
"And now that we are dropping sanctions, we have less leverage to get them to give more in future negotiations," Murphy said. "And just remember, Trump hasn’t accomplished ANY of his constantly shifting goals. Iran still has its ballistic missile and drone program. They still have a navy that can close the strait. A hardline regime is still in charge."
"Of course, none of those things could be accomplished by an air campaign—which is why so many of us opposed this war," he added. "And now the new regime is emboldened. They took our best shot and beat us. Iran emerges more powerful."
Iranian leaders underscored their readiness to continue the fight should negotiations fail.
"Look, Americans talk too much and keep changing their story by the minute," Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters Commander Ali Abdollahi Aliabadi said Monday. "We've said it many times before: On the battlefield, we'll show what we're capable of."