September, 03 2020, 12:00am EDT
North Carolina Abortion Providers and Reproductive Justice Activists File Sweeping Litigation Challenging Multiple Abortion Restrictions
Restrictions Disproportionately Impact Black North Carolinians and People in Rural Areas
RALEIGH, North Carolina
Abortion providers in North Carolina and SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective sued today challenging several medically unnecessary abortion restrictions that have pushed abortion out of reach in the state and stigmatized essential health care. The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Decades of attacks on reproductive rights and health care access by state legislators have already led to provider shortages and an inadequate public health infrastructure in the state, with the COVID-19 pandemic only exacerbating these issues. These discriminatory policies violate civil and reproductive rights, and disproportionately impact North Carolina's communities of color, particularly Black communities, as well as rural communities.
The restrictions being challenged include:
- A licensing scheme that arbitrarily singles out abortion providers with medically unnecessary and onerous requirements;
- A ban on qualified advanced practice clinicians (APCs), such as physician assistants, certified nurse-midwives, and nurse practitioners, from providing abortions;
- A ban on the use of telehealth for medication abortion;
- A requirement that providers deliver state-mandated biased counseling with no medical benefit to their patients; and
- A mandatory delay for patients seeking an abortion of at least 72 hours after they receive state-mandated information.
The groups issued the following statements:
Statement from Anjali Dalal, senior staff attorney, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project:
"Since 2011, politicians have passed more than 460 medically unnecessary laws to push abortion out of reach. The laws we are challenging today create a web of restrictions that limit whether, when, and under what circumstances people may obtain an abortion. They serve only as obstacles in the way of needed medical care, and should be struck down to ensure North Carolinians can access abortion, and ensure pateints from surrounding states, that are increasingly hostile to abortion, can do the same."
Statement from Monica Simpson, executive director, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective:
"For true reproductive freedom, we need far more than the legal right to abortion. If we are not able to get reproductive health care when we need it, from providers we trust, in spaces that are accessible and affirming to our communities and our needs, then we are not actually free. As a North Carolina native, I've seen firsthand how these laws insult the dignity and humanity of Black and brown women, trans, and non-binary folks; we have been denied full access to reproductive justice for far too long. SisterSong joins this lawsuit as a continuation of our communities' deep and ongoing leadership in North Carolina and across the South. We know we will see the end of racist, misogynist abortion laws in this state."
Statement from Elizabeth Barber, reproductive freedom fellow at the ACLU of North Carolina:
"People aren't truly free if we can't make our own decisions about our bodies, our lives, and our futures. Access to healthcare should be safe, affordable, and free from government interference. We are hopeful that the court will uphold the basic rights of North Carolinians by removing barriers that currently restrict access to safe reproductive healthcare and tie the hands of medical professionals who should be free to provide the best care for their patients."
Statement from Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation of America:
"For decades, the reproductive rights of North Carolinians have been relentlessly attacked by politicians in the state legislature who have created a complex web of medically unnecessary requirements designed to push abortion access out of reach. Today, our nation is also facing dueling, emergent public health crises: state-sanctioned racist violence against people of color and COVID-19. The lawsuit filed today in North Carolina is one piece of our fight to ensure patients can access essential health care, including vital family planning services -- regardless of who they are or where they live."
Statement from Nancy Northup, president & CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:
"These laws do nothing but make it harder to access abortion and should be struck down. North Carolina legislators should be expanding access to health care, not restricting it. This is particularly important during a pandemic. That means expanding the use of telehealth and getting rid of needless barriers that serve no medical purpose."
Access to abortion is limited in North Carolina as a result of decades of political attacks that reached a fever pitch under former Gov. Pat McCrory. During the McCrory-Forest administration, 11 abortion facilities were shut down, leaving 91 percent of North Carolina counties without an abortion provider and disproportionately hurting rural communities. And politicians showed they'd stop at nothing to chip away at abortion access even further. Then-Speaker of the House Thom Tillis infamously added numerous abortion restrictions into a motorcycle safety bill as a backdoor attempt to quietly erode reproductive rights on the final day of the 2013 legislative session.
The plaintiffs in the case are Planned Parenthood South Atlantic; SisterSong; A Woman's Choice of Charlotte, Inc.; A Woman's Choice of Greensboro, Inc.; A Woman's Choice of Raleigh, Inc; three doctors; and one advanced practice clinician. They are represented by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of North Carolina, and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
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 and Fetterman Block Effort to Stop Trump's War on Iran
"The current cease-fire is fragile—and the only path to lasting peace is diplomacy, not another cycle of American military escalation," one campaigner stressed after lawmakers refused to advance the resolution.
Jun 27, 2025
Nearly all U.S. Senate Republicans and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania on Friday evening blocked a resolution that reiterated Congress' authority to declare war and would have ordered President Donald Trump to stop taking military action against Iran without congressional approval.
Every other member of the Democratic Caucus and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) supported holding a final vote on the resolution—which Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, announced last week, before Trump's weekend bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities.
"We commend Sen. Kaine for his steadfast leadership in bringing this resolution, and the U.S. senators who stood on the right side of history today in safeguarding against yet another senseless war."
Citing the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Kaine's measure states that "the question of whether United States forces should be engaged in hostilities against Iran should be answered following a full briefing to Congress and the American public of the issues at stake, a public debate in Congress, and a congressional vote."
Pointing to various other federal laws, Kaine's resolution "directs the president to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran."
In a statement after Friday's 47-53 vote, Kaine said that "the Framers of our Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war because they believed that the decision to send our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way was too big for any one person. The Trump administration's chaotic strategy on Iran confused the American people and created significant risks for service members and their families."
"I am disappointed that many of my colleagues are not willing to stand up and say Congress needs to be part of a decision as important as whether or not the U.S. should send our nation's sons and daughters to fight against Iran," Kaine added. "I will continue to do all I can to keep presidents of any party from starting wars without robust public debate by Congress."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, was among the lawmakers who spoke in support of Kaine's resolution ahead of the vote. "We do not need another unnecessary and costly war. We have had enough of them," he said on the Senate floor, pointing out that the Vietnam War and the U.S. invasion of Iraq were "based on a series of lies."
"We should not go to war against Iran," Sanders declared. He condemned Trump's recent attack on the Middle Eastern country as "unconstitutional," and argued that "diplomacy is a better path," as demonstrated by the nuclear deal in 2015—which Trump ultimately ditched during his first term.
Sanders also made the case that the U.S. should not be allied with "war criminal" Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who started the bombing of Iran and is wanted by the International Criminal Court for his mass slaughter of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
"Enough is enough," the senator said, noting that the U.S. gives Netanyahu's government billions of dollars in annual military aid. "It is beyond absurd that we continue to finance Israel's wars while neglecting the needs of our own people."
Meanwhile, in response to a question from a BBC reporter on Friday, Trump said that he would "without question, absolutely" consider bombing Iran again if intelligence suggested the country could enrich uranium to a level that concerned him.
After the Senate vote, National Iranian American Council president Jamal Abdi said that the outcome "says more about the makeup of the Senate than it does the merits of the resolution. Regardless, we saw a near majority do the right thing and stand up against war and for democracy, despite a cavalcade of misinformation from war hawks. We will continue to press the case that war with Iran is against U.S. interests and U.S. security, and redouble our work to prevent the conflict from reigniting."
"We commend Sen. Kaine for his steadfast leadership in bringing this resolution, and the U.S. senators who stood on the right side of history today in safeguarding against yet another senseless war," he continued, noting the cease-fire between Israel and Iran that Trump announced earlier this week.
"Though a cease-fire is holding for now, the most certain way to guarantee peace is through an abandonment of war and a bold pursuit of sincere negotiations," Abdi added. "We urge our Members of Congress to change course, and urgently support a return to U.S.—Iran talks and a diplomatic pathway forward for both countries."
We took an oath to defend the Constitution - just like every Senator. Today, Republicans broke that oath. We WILL hold them accountable. (2/2)
— VoteVets (@votevets.org) June 27, 2025 at 7:09 PM
Also responding to the Friday development in a statement, Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian asserted that "today's vote sends a powerful message: There is a bipartisan movement to reject more war in the Middle East and prevent us from being unilaterally dragged into war before Congress and the American people can have their say."
"We thank Sen. Kaine for his leadership and Sen. Paul for his principled vote to stand up for the Constitution," Kharrazian said, urging the House of Representatives to pass a similar resolution led by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Ahead of the Senate's vote, more than 41,000 people nationwide had signed a petition from the progressive group MoveOn Civic Action that calls on Congress to vote for the resolutions in both chambers.
"The current cease-fire is fragile—and the only path to lasting peace is diplomacy, not another cycle of American military escalation," Kharrazian emphasized. "The U.S. must lead with restraint, not repeat the mistakes of endless war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Muslim Lawmakers Decry 'Vile' Bipartisan Islamophobic Attacks on Zohran Mamdani
The lawmakers asserted that "smears from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle" cannot be allowed to continue.
Jun 27, 2025
All four Muslim members of the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday condemned their colleagues' Islamophobic attacks on Democratic New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, which have come not only from Republicans but also from at least two congressional Democrats representing the candidate's home state.
"The vile, anti-Muslim, and racist smears from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle attacking Zohran Mamdani cannot be met with silence," Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), André Carson (D-Ind.), and Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement.
"At a time of increased violence against elected officials, we cannot allow the attacks on Zohran Mamdani to continue."
Mamdani—a democratic socialist who would be the first Muslim mayor of the nation's largest city if he wins November's general election—has come under fire by Republicans including Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee, who on Thursday formally appealed to U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi to initiate proceedings to denaturalize and deport "little Muhammad."
Earlier this week, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) posted a photo of Mamdani wearing a traditional tunic with the caption, "After 9/11 we said, 'Never Forget.' I think sadly we have forgotten."
As of Friday afternoon, no Democratic member of Congress from New York had explicitly condemned their GOP colleagues' Islamophobic remarks. To the contrary, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) falsely claimed Thursday that Mamdani had made references to "global jihad" and spuriously asserted that "globalize the intifada"—a call for Palestinian liberation and battling injustice—is a call to "kill all the Jews."
Freshman Rep. Lauren Gillen (D-N.Y.) also falsely accused Mamdani of "a deeply disturbing pattern of unacceptable antisemitic comments."
The four Muslim lawmakers said in their statement that "these hateful, Islamophobic, and racist tropes have become so entrenched and normalized in our politics."
"We know these attacks all too well," they added.
Omar and Tlaib have been on the receiving end of Islamophobic attacks by House colleagues and outside death threats for years, stemming in part from Omar's status as refugee and Tlaib's as the only Palestinian American in Congress.
Like Mamdani, both lawmakers have also been targeted from both sides of the aisle for their support for Palestinian liberation, as well as their opposition to Israel's invasion, occupation, colonization and apartheid in Palestine, and the assault and siege of Gaza that are the subject of an ongoing International Court of Justice genocide case.
Advocacy groups have reported a sharp increase in anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian hate incidents since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led assault on Israel, a climate reminiscent of the pervasive Islamophobia following the September 11, 2001 attacks. There has also been a surge in antisemitism as Israeli forces obliterate Gaza, although critics have decried the widespread conflation of opposition to Zionism with hatred of Jewish people by groups including the Anti-Defamation League.
"At a time of increased violence against elected officials, we cannot allow the attacks on Zohran Mamdani to continue," the four lawmakers stressed. "They directly contribute to the ongoing dehumanization and violence against Muslim Americans. We unequivocally reject the normalization of anti-Muslim hate and fearmongering and call on elected leaders across our country to speak out."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also issued a statement Friday condemning the "outpouring of disgraceful, dangerous, racist ideology from sitting members of Congress and [Trump] administration officials following Zohran Mamdani's win in the New York mayoral primary."
Jayapal continued:
The constant displays of Islamophobia are an affront to the millions of Muslim Americans and Muslims around the world. One of the most jarring called for the denaturalization and deportation of Mr. Mamdani, an American citizen who just won a massive Democratic primary with more votes than that member, Mr. Ogles, could ever hope to win. This is an insult to voters in New York City who take democracy seriously.
Denaturalization of U.S. citizens is part of the Trump playbook to attack all legal immigration. It is completely outrageous and flies in the face of the laws of this country.
"The hateful language directed at Mr. Mamdani will get someone killed, and we all should be outraged," Jayapal added. "It must end. Every person who cares about democracy, freedom of religion, and the right for all Americans to be treated equally should speak out immediately against these insane and dangerous attacks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Religious Opt-Out Ruling 'Could Wreak Havoc on Public Schools'
The ruling, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reflects the right-wing majority's "failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist."
Jun 27, 2025
A day after many LGBTQ+ Americans celebrated the 10th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established marriage equality in the United States, right-wing Justice Samuel Alito suggested in a new decision that public schools should not promote "acceptance of same-sex marriage."
Alito's opinion was handed down in a 6-3 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which the high court's right-wing majority held that parents should be permitted to opt their children out of certain lessons in public schools on religious grounds.
The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by parents of several religious backgrounds in Montgomery County, Maryland, who sued the county's school system for not giving parents advance notice and an opportunity to opt out of a curriculum that included storybooks dealing with LGBTQ+ themes.
The books included Pride Puppy, about a dog that gets lost at an LGBTQ+ pride parade; Love, Violet, about a girl who has a same-sex crush; Born Ready, about a transgender boy; and Uncle Bobby's Wedding, about a gay couple getting married.
Alito pointed to the latter book in particular in his opinion.
"It is significant that this book does not simply refer to same-sex marriage as an existing practice," wrote the judge. "Instead, it presents acceptance of same-sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated."
Elly Brinkley, staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free speech group PEN America, noted the timing of Alito's comments about marriage equality.
"Just after the 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges and as we celebrate Pride Month, the Supreme Court has delivered a devastating blow to the dignity of LGBTQ+ people and families," said Brinkley. "This ruling means that parents can opt their children out of any classroom activity that acknowledges same-sex marriages, the right to which this very court held was guaranteed by the Constitution."
The right-wing majority ruled that Montgomery County Public Schools must allow families to opt out of any lessons that parents believe will interfere with their children's religious education, including stories or discussions with LGBTQ+ themes.
"This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights."
Legal scholars said that in addition to stigmatizing the families of an estimated 5 million children in the U.S. who have one or more LGBTQ+ parents, the ruling could pave the way for parents to argue that their children shouldn't be exposed at school to materials involving any number of topics, including evolution, yoga, and mothers who work outside the home—all issues that have been the subject of earlier, unsuccessful lawsuits against schools.
"The decision could have far-reaching consequences for public schools' ability to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that reflects the diversity of their communities, as well schools' ability to implement any secular lesson plan that may trigger religious objections," said the ACLU, which filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that the school district's "policy prohibiting opt-outs from the English Language Arts curriculum is religiously neutral and applicable across the board."
Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, said that religious freedom is "fundamentally important" under U.S. law.
But freedom of religion, Mach said, "shouldn't force public schools to exempt students from any secular lessons that don't align with their families' religious views. This decision could wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions and undermining their ability to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society."
Cecilia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, added that parents with religious objections will now be "empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district's legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption—ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences."
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the case, with Sotomayor making the unusual move of announcing her dissent from the bench.
Citizens fully experiencing the United States' multicultural society, said Sotomayor, "is critical to our nation's civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs."
She also accused the majority of making a "myopic attempt to resolve a major constitutional question through close textual analysis of Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which revealed, she said, "its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist."
The ruling is the latest victory for right-wing advocates of what they view as religious freedom at the high court; other recent rulings have allowed a web designer to refuse to make a website for same-sex couples and a high school football coach to pray with his team at school games.
Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, called Friday's ruling a "deeply troubling outcome for public education, equality, and the constitutional principle of the separation between state and church."
"This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights," said Gaylor. "Public schools must be grounded in facts and reality and not subject to religious censors."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular