

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.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Mississippi's request to review a case challenging the state's ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. These kind of bans on abortion prior to viability have been unconstitutional since 1973, when the Supreme Court decided the landmark case Roe v. Wade. In this case, the Court has agreed to consider the question as to whether all previability prohibitions on abortion are unconstitutional.
The challenge to Mississippi's 15-week ban was brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the law firm Paul Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, and the Mississippi Center for Justice on behalf of Jackson Women's Health Organization--the last remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi. The state of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to take this case after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law in December 2019.
Statement from Nancy Northup, President & CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:
"Alarm bells are ringing loudly about the threat to reproductive rights. The Supreme Court just agreed to review an abortion ban that unquestionably violates nearly 50 years of Supreme Court precedent and is a test case to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The consequences of a Roe reversal would be devastating. Over 20 states would prohibit abortion outright. Eleven states--including Mississippi--currently have trigger bans on the books which would instantaneously ban abortion if Roe is overturned. Already, abortion is nearly impossible to access for people in states like Mississippi, where lawmakers have been chipping away at the right to abortion for decades. We will keep fighting to make sure that people do not lose this fundamental right to control their own bodies and futures."
Statement from Diane Derzis, owner of Jackson Women's Health Organization--the sole abortion clinic in Mississippi:
"As the only abortion clinic left in Mississippi, we see patients who have spent weeks saving up the money to travel here and pay for childcare, for a place to stay, and everything else involved. If this ban were to take effect, we would be forced to turn many of those patients away, and they would lose their right to abortion in this state. Mississippi politicians have created countless barriers for people trying to access abortion, intentionally pushing them later into pregnancy. It's all part of their strategy to eliminate abortion access entirely."
For now, abortion remains legal in Mississippi and the ban will remain blocked as the Supreme Court reviews the case. Mississippi passed their 15-week ban in 2018, followed by a 6-week ban in 2019. Twelve other states have passed unconstitutional abortion bans at various points in pregnancy since 2019, and each ban that has been challenged has been subsequently struck down: Alabama; Arkansas; Georgia; Kentucky; Louisiana; Montana, Missouri; Ohio; Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee; and Utah. In 2016, the Supreme Court denied petitions for certiorari on two abortion ban cases appealed by North Dakota (six-week ban) and Arkansas (12-week ban). Abortion bans threaten the health, rights, and lives of people of color and low-income people disproportionately, as they already face more hurdles when accessing abortion.
Click here for the Center's interactive map called "What if Roe Fell", which shows what would happen in each state if Roe were overturned.
The Center for Reproductive Rights is a global human rights organization of lawyers and advocates who ensure reproductive rights are protected in law as fundamental human rights for the dignity, equality, health, and well-being of every person.
(917) 637-3600"That the US Congress is not debating or introducing bills to address the issues presented here represents a breakdown of democracy," said an economic justice think tank.
A new report by an economic think tank takes aim at the broadly accepted idea that Americans are divided on the major issues affecting millions of people every day—the question of how to ensure everyone can get the healthcare they need without going bankrupt, how the government can ensure working people make enough money to live, and whether the US should take more aggressive climate action.
As it turns out, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) suggested Monday, there's far more agreement on those and more issues across the political spectrum than the corporate media and establishment politicians from both sides of the aisle would have the public believe.
Lawmakers who push for good, fair-paying jobs for all workers; raising the chronically stagnant federal minimum wage; guaranteeing healthcare for all Americans; clean energy investments; and ending the influence of corporations and billionaires on US elections would not be advocating for policies that are just popular on the left, the report says, but would actually be promoting a "Majority Agenda."
"It may feel like Americans agree on nothing right now, but recent polling tells a different story," said CEPR on social media. "From raising the minimum wage and strengthening Social Security to affordable housing and healthcare reform, these progressive policies are broadly popular despite the political establishment continuing to ignore them."
The group pointed to one 2024 poll by the American Communities Project that showed more than 60% of Americans agreed that the economy "is rigged to advantage the rich and the powerful," while 62% disagreed with the idea of cutting social programs to lower taxes.
Another 2024 poll by The Associated Press found that 91% of Americans supported equal protection under the law and 88% supported the right to privacy, while a 2020 poll by the Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard Kennedy School revealed that 89% of Americans expressed strong support for affordable healthcare, 85% felt people have the right to a job, and 93% thought the right to clean air and water is essential.
Analyzing those surveys and other data, CEPR advised policymakers to consider the Majority Agenda as a "roadmap" to passing policies that large majorities of Americans view as major priorities to improve their quality of life.
The report is divided into three sections: Good Jobs, Strong Infrastructure, and Fair Play.
To push for fair, well-paying employment, said CEPR, lawmakers should support policies including:
The section on strengthening US "infrastructure" looks beyond the traditional definition of the term regarding physical infrastructure projects, pushing for stronger policies that can help working people thrive by ensuring their healthcare, housing, and other basic needs are met.
A stronger infrastructure, said CEPR, would include:
CEPR pointed to three areas in which lawmakers could increase "fair play" for Americans:
"That the US Congress is not debating or introducing bills to address the issues presented here represents a breakdown of democracy, one that comes at a considerable cost to the betterment of life for large swaths of Americans. At the same time, the access to and influence over our democratic processes by the monied class has upended our system of government, and all too often the tyranny of the wealthy minority has reigned," reads the CEPR report.
"We hope this report stands as a reminder that even in a fraught political moment," said CEPR, "there is a range of straightforward, broadly popular policy choices that could improve the lives of millions of people."
"We have trade and energy agreements with Iran. We will respect and honor them and expect others not to meddle in our affairs."
Although President Donald Trump has ordered the US military to enforce a blockade around the Strait of Hormuz, Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun warned on Monday against any effort to obstruct Chinese vessels.
As reported by Business Today, the Chinese defense minister emphasized that his country and Iran have reached an arrangement allowing the safe transportation of Chinese ships through the strait, and he said the US should not subject them to its blockade.
"Our ships are moving in and out of the waters of the Strait of Hormuz," the defense minister said. "We have trade and energy agreements with Iran. We will respect and honor them and expect others not to meddle in our affairs. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, and it is open for us."
Chinese Defense Minister Admiral Dong Jun:
"We have trade and energy agreements with Iran; we expect others not to interfere in our affairs. The Strait of Hormuz is open to us."
China is issuing a warning to the US. pic.twitter.com/oIQK9845Ty
— Daily Iran News (@DailyIranNews) April 13, 2026
Trump announced a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday, saying the US would not allow any ships that had cut deals with Iran for safe passage to be let through.
The blockade announcement came after US negotiators, led by Vice President JD Vance, failed to reach a peace agreement with their Iranian counterparts to bring an end to the conflict, which Trump launched illegally without any congressional approval six weeks ago.
The failure to reach a peace deal sent the price of oil upward yet again, as the price of Brent crude oil futures and WTI crude oil futures approached $100 per barrel.
Crystal Carey, general counsel at the National Labor Relations Board, represented Amazon during her time at one of the biggest management-side law firms in the country.
National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Crystal Carey proposed a settlement on Sunday that would unwind a major case against the e-commerce behemoth Amazon—a company that Carey represented when she worked in the private sector for corporate clients.
Carey, whom President Donald Trump nominated after firing the Biden-era NLRB general counsel last year, sent her proposed settlement terms to the judge overseeing the labor agency's case against Amazon, which originated in the final year of the Biden administration. According to Bloomberg, Carey proposed that Amazon provide two weeks' worth of pay to dozens of drivers who were previously employed by Battle-Tested Strategies (BTS), formerly one of Amazon's delivery service partners (DSPs).
Amazon, in turn, would not be required to admit to unfair labor practices or be "found liable as a joint employer." The Biden-era NLRB argued that Amazon was a joint employer of the BTS delivery drivers and thus required to recognize and collectively bargain with their union—something Amazon has refused to do.
Bloomberg noted that, if decided against Amazon, the case Carey wants to settle "could have led for the first time to an agency judge, the NLRB members in Washington, and, eventually, federal appeals court judges ruling that Amazon was the joint employer of drivers for one of its delivery service partners."
"Amazon contracts with thousands of such partners to manage hundreds of thousands of delivery workers," Bloomberg observed.
Before Trump nominated her to replace labor champion Jennifer Abruzzo as general counsel of the NLRB, Carey was a partner at Morgan Lewis, one of the biggest management-side law firms in the country. The Economic Policy Institute noted following Carey's Senate confirmation last year that Morgan Lewis "represents corporations known for violating workers’ rights, including Amazon, SpaceX, Apple, and Tesla."
"Morgan Lewis is also pursuing the legal challenge that the NLRB is unconstitutional, despite several former NLRB members being employed at the firm," EPI noted. (Amazon has also argued in court that the labor board is unconstitutional.)
Amazon donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund, and the company's founder, mega-billionaire Jeff Bezos, attended the inauguration ceremony alongside other big-name tech executives.
Despite her ties to Amazon via her tenure at Morgan Lewis, Carey argued that she was not required to recuse herself from the case she's working to settle. According to Bloomberg, Carey said in an interview that "because a year had passed since she herself represented Amazon and because Morgan Lewis wasn’t representing the company in the [ongoing joint employer] case, she didn’t need to recuse herself."