September, 02 2021, 12:10pm EDT
Supreme Court Ruling Ends Most Abortion in Texas
High court denies plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief; Plaintiffs will continue to fight to block the law.
WASHINGTON
Late last night, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an emergency request to block Texas' radical new abortion ban (S.B. 8), which took effect yesterday, September 1, and forced almost all abortion in Texas to come to an abrupt stop. This ruling allows the law to remain in effect. The case will now proceed before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The law bans abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy--before many people even know they're pregnant. Approximately 85 to 90 percent of people who obtain abortions in Texas are at least six weeks into pregnancy, meaning this law will decimate abortion access in the state.
The law includes a bounty-hunting scheme, encouraging private individuals to sue anyone in Texas who violates the law. A reward of at least $10,000 will be given to anyone who successfully sues a doctor, health center worker, or any person who helps someone obtain an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Lawsuits may be filed against a broad range of people, including abortion funds providing financial assistance to patients, health center staff, and even a member of the clergy who assists an abortion patient.
The average one-way driving distance for pregnant Texans seeking an abortion will now increase 20-fold, from 12 miles to 248 miles, according to new research from the Guttmacher Institute. Many neighboring states -- where pregnant Texans will be forced to travel for care -- have existing abortion restrictions that will compound the already-complex web of barriers to abortion care even for those who have the means to travel.
Twelve other states have passed bans on abortion early in pregnancy, but all have been blocked in court and none have been allowed to take effect until now. Texas' ban is different because it allows private individuals to enforce the ban rather than state officials. Anti-abortion politicians designed the law this way to try to insulate it from federal court review. This is the second time abortion has been unavailable in Texas since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 -- it was previously unavailable for a period of approximately one month during the COVID-19 pandemic due to an executive order halting all abortion procedures.
People struggling to make ends meet, people of color, and those living in rural areas, who already face the largest barriers to accessing health care, will be most harmed by this law, as traveling out of state for care will require additional expenses related to hotel stays, transportation, childcare, and lost wages. For many, this abortion ban will force people to carry their pregnancies to term against their will -- a burden that will fall hardest on Black women given the stark disparities in maternal mortality rates in Texas.
The plaintiffs in this case include Whole Woman's Health and other Texas abortion providers, Texas abortion funds and support networks, doctors, health center staff, and clergy members. Plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Lawyering Project, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, and Morrison & Foerster LLP. The defendants include every state court trial judge and county clerk in Texas, the Texas Medical Board, the Texas Board of Nursing, the Texas Board of Pharmacy, the attorney general, and the director of Right to Life East Texas, who has already openly called for people to sue their local abortion providers under S.B. 8.
Timeline of the case:
- May 19: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 8 into law.
- July 13: Plaintiffs filed the case in federal district court.
- August 4-5: The defendants filed four motions to dismiss, asking the district court to end the case.
- August 12: The federal district court judge scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for August 30 to determine whether to block the law before it takes effect on September 1.
- August 25: The federal district court judge denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the case. Defendants immediately filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Circuit, as well as a motion to stop all proceedings in the district court, including canceling the district court's preliminary injunction hearing.
- August 27: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order stopping all proceedings in the district court, including canceling the district court's preliminary injunction hearing. The court also denied the plaintiffs' request to expedite the appeal of the defendants' motion to dismiss. Without expediting the appeal process, the law could be in effect for months before the Fifth Circuit issues a decision.
- August 29: The plaintiffs filed for emergency relief with the Fifth Circuit, which was quickly denied.
- August 30: The plaintiffs filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to block the law before it can take effect on Wednesday or allow district court proceedings to resume.
- September 1, 12:00AM: SB 8 took effect after the Supreme Court did not respond to plaintiffs' request before the law's effective date.
- September 1: (Last night) The U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' emergency request to block the law and allowed Texas's six-week abortion ban to remain in effect. The case will now continue at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
You can read the full complaint here.
Quotes from plaintiffs and litigators:
Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman's Health and Whole Woman's Health Alliance:
"We are devastated by today's ruling. Our patients are scared and confused and desperately trying to figure out what they can do to get an abortion. We don't know what will happen next. Our staff and providers are so afraid. We are complying with the ban, and our four Texas clinics are still open. But let me ask you: Is this how you want someone you know and love to experience abortion? Please join us to fight back. Texans deserve better."
Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:
"We are devastated that the Supreme Court has refused to block a law that blatantly violates Roe v. Wade. Right now, people seeking abortion across Texas are panicking-they have no idea where or when they will be able to get an abortion, if ever. Texas politicians have succeeded for the moment in making a mockery of the rule of law, upending abortion care in Texas, and forcing patients to leave the state - if they have the means - to get constitutionally protected healthcare. This should send chills down the spine of everyone in this country who cares about the constitution. We will keep fighting this ban until abortion access is restored in Texas."
Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation of America:"The Supreme Court has ignored 50 years of precedent and set back the hands of time, essentially allowing Texas to be a pre-Roe state. This is a travesty for the nearly 7 million women of reproductive age, and everyone who supports access to safe, legal abortion. The impact of this heinous abortion ban cannot be understated, overwhelmingly harming Black and Latinx people, people with low incomes, and people in rural areas, who already face immense barriers to health care access. This is the loudest alarm yet that abortion rights are in grave danger, in Texas and across the country. Planned Parenthood and its supporters are listening, and we will continue fighting for patients, their providers, and their loved ones."
Adriana Pinon, policy counsel and senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas:"This is a devastating blow for Texans and their ability to determine their own future. Every day this abortion ban is in effect, countless Texans lose their constitutional right to access abortion. As a result of the Supreme Court's terrible decision, many Texans -- and disproportionately people of color and people with low incomes -- will be forced to carry pregnancies to term against their will. This is especially horrific given the severe maternal mortality crisis in Texas that has impacted Black women the most. We will do everything in our power to put a stop to this cruel and dangerous law."
Rupali Sharma, Senior Counsel and Director at the Lawyering Project:
"Late yesterday, the Supreme Court permitted Texas to halt virtually all abortion care in the state. This is nothing short of devastating, particularly for the countless Texans who will now have to leave the state for critical healthcare or be condemned to continue a pregnancy against their will because they lack the means to make a lengthy, unexpected and expensive journey that rips them away from their families and communities when they deserve nothing but love and support."
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) 637-3600LATEST NEWS
New Rule From Agency Trump Wants Destroyed Would Save Consumers $5 Billion Per Year in Overdraft Fees
One advocate called the CFPB's new rule "a major milestone in its effort to level the playing field between regular people and big banks."
Dec 12, 2024
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one of President-elect Donald Trump's top expected targets as he plans to dismantle parts of the federal government after taking office in January, announced on Thursday its latest action aimed at saving households across the U.S. hundreds of dollars in fees each year.
The agency issued a final rule to close a 55-year-old loophole that has allowed big banks to collect billions of dollars in overdraft fees from consumers each year,
The rule makes significant updates to federal regulations for financial institutions' overdraft fees, ordering banks with more than $10 billion in assets to choose between several options:
- Capping their overdraft fees at $5;
- Capping fees at an amount that covers costs and losses; or
- Disclosing the terms of overdraft loans as they do with other loans, giving consumers a choice regarding whether they open a line of overdraft credit and allowing them to comparison-shop.
The final rule is expected to save Americans $5 billion annually in overdraft fees, or about $225 per household that pays overdraft fees.
Adam Rust, director of financial services at the Consumer Federation of America, called the rule "a major milestone" in the CFPB's efforts "to level the playing field between regular people and big banks."
"No one should have to pick between paying a junk overdraft fee or buying groceries," said Rust. "This rule gives banks a choice: they can charge a reasonable fee that does not exploit their customers, or they can treat these loan products as an extension of credit and comply with existing lending laws."
The rule is set to go into effect next October, but the incoming Trump administration could put its implementation in jeopardy. Trump has named billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk to co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory body he hopes to create. Musk has signaled that he wants to "delete" the CFPB, echoing a proposal within the right-wing policy agenda Project 2025, which was co-authored by many officials from the first Trump term.
"The CFPB is cracking down on these excessive junk fees and requiring big banks to come clean about the interest rate they're charging on overdraft loans."
"It is critical that incoming and returning members of Congress and President-elect Trump side with voters struggling in this economy and support the CFPB's overdraft rule," said Lauren Saunders, associate director at the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC). "This rule is an example of the CFPB's hard work for everyday Americans."
In recent decades, banks have used overdraft fees as profit drivers which increase consumer costs by billions of dollars every year while causing tens of millions to lose access to banking services and face negative credit reports that can harm their financial futures.
The Federal Reserve Board exempted banks from Truth in Lending Act protections in 1969, allowing them to charge overdraft fees without disclosing their terms to consumers.
"For far too long, the largest banks have exploited a legal loophole that has drained billions of dollars from Americans' deposit accounts," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. "The CFPB is cracking down on these excessive junk fees and requiring big banks to come clean about the interest rate they're charging on overdraft loans."
Government watchdog Accountable.US credited the CFPB with cracking down on overdraft fees despite aggressive campaigning against the action by Wall Street, which has claimed the fees have benefits for American families.
Accountable.US noted that Republican Reps. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina and Andy Barr of Kentucky have appeared to lift their criticisms of the rule straight from industry talking points, claiming that reforming overdraft fee rules would "limit consumer choice, stifle innovation, and ultimately raise the cost of banking for all consumers."
Similarly, in April Barr claimed at a hearing that "the vast majority of Americans" believe credit card late fees are legitimate after the Biden administration unveiled a rule capping the fees at $8.
"Americans pay billions in overdraft fees every year, but the CFPB's final rule is putting an end to the $35 surprise fee," said Liz Zelnick, director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power Program at Accountable.US. "Despite efforts to block the rule and protect petty profits by big bank CEOs and lobbyists, the Biden administration's initiative will protect our wallets from an exploitative profit-maximizing tactic."
The new overdraft fee rule follows a $95 million enforcement action against Navy Federal Credit Union for illegal surprise overdraft fees and similar actions against Wells Fargo, Regions Bank, and Atlantic Union.
Consumers have saved $6 billion annually through the CFPB's initiative to curb junk fees, which has led multiple banks to reduce or eliminate their fees.
"Big banks that charge high fees for overdrafts are not providing a courtesy to consumers—it's a form of predatory lending that exacerbates wealth disparities and racial inequalities," said Carla Sanchez-Adams, senior attorney at NCLC. "The CFPB's overdraft rule ensures that the most vulnerable consumers are protected from big banks trying to pad their profits with junk fees."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Arrests of US Journalists Surged in 2024 Amid Crackdown on Gaza Protests
Police use of "catch-and-release" tactics is particularly worrying for press freedom advocates, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
Dec 12, 2024
Arrests and detainments of journalists in the United States surged in 2024 compared to the year prior, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, a project of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
The tracker reports that journalists were arrested or detained by police at least 48 times this year—eclipsing the number of arrests that took place in the previous two years combined, and constituting the third highest number of yearly arrests and detentions since the project began cataloging press freedom violations in 2017. 2020, however, still stands as far and away the year with the most arrests and detentions.
The 48 arrests and detentions this year is also part of a larger list of "press freedom incidents" that the tracker documents, including things like equipment damage, equipment seizure, and assault.
While a year with a high number of protests typically leads to more arrests, "it was protests in response to the Israel-Gaza war that caused this year's uptick," according to the tracker.
The vast majority of the arrests and detainments out of the total 48 were linked to these sorts of demonstrations, and it was protests at Columbia University's Manhattan campus that were the site of this year's largest detainment of journalists.
The report also recounts the story of Roni Jacobson, a freelance reporter whose experience on the last day of 2023 was a harbinger of press freedom incidents to come in 2024. Jacobson was on assignment to cover a pro-Palestinian demonstration for the New York Daily News on December 31, 2023 when she was told to leave by police because she didn't have city-issued press credentials with her. She recounted that she accidentally bumped into an officer and was arrested. She was held overnight at a precinct and then released after the charges against her, which included disorderly conduct, were dropped.
Even five arrests that the tracker deems "election-related" took place at protests that were "at least partially if not entirely focused on the Israel-Gaza war." Three of those election-related arrests took place at protests happening around the Democratic National Convention in August.
One police force in particular bears responsibility for this year's crackdown: Nearly 50% of the arrests of journalists this year were at the hands of the New York Police Department (NYPD). Many of those taken into custody had their charges dropped quickly, but the tracker notes that the NYPD's use of "catch-and-release" tactics was particularly worrying to press freedom advocates.
Two photojournalists, Josh Pacheco and Olga Federova, were detained four times this year in both New York City and Chicago while photographing protests. They were both "assaulted and arrested and [had] their equipment damaged" while documenting police clearing a student encampment at Manhattan's Fashion Institute of Technology; however, they were released the next day and told their arrests had been voided.
"While [we are] glad that some common sense prevailed by the NYPD not charging these two photographers with any crime, we are very concerned that they are perfecting 'catch-and-release' to an art form,” Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, told the tracker.
"The fact that they took two photojournalists off the street, preventing them from making any more images or transmitting the ones they already had on a matter of extreme public concern, is very disturbing," he said.
Besides covering protests, 2024 also saw the continued practice of "criminally charging journalists for standard journalistic practices," according to the tracker. For example, one investigative journalist in Los Angeles was repeatedly threatened with arrest while attempting to cover a homeless encampment sweep in the city, and then was detained in October, though he was let go without charges.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Stuff of Parody': Trump Taps Election-Denying Ally Kari Lake to Run Voice of America
"Authoritarians love to control and instrumentalize media organizations, especially state-funded ones," journalist Mehdi Hasan wrote in response to the news.
Dec 12, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump said Wednesday that he has chosen Kari Lake, a far-right election denier and failed U.S. Senate candidate, to lead the federally funded international broadcast network Voice of America, a move that critics said underscores Trump's effort to transform government entities into vehicles to advance his own interests.
In a Truth Social post, Trump wrote that as director of VOA, Lake would "ensure that the American values of Freedom and Liberty are broadcast around the World FAIRLY and ACCURATELY, unlike the lies spread by the Fake News Media."
Lake, a former television news anchor in Arizona who has echoed Trump's insidious attacks on journalists, wrote in response to the president-elect's announcement that she was "honored" to be asked to lead VOA, which she characterized as "a vital international media outlet dedicated to advancing the interests of the United States by engaging directly with people across the globe and promoting democracy and truth." VOA, which is supposed to have editorial independence, has long faced criticism for its coverage and treatment of employees.
Though the VOA's Charter states that the outlet will "present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions," Lake made clear that she views the network as a propaganda channel for the United States.
"Under my leadership, the VOA will excel in its mission: chronicling America's achievements worldwide," Lake, an outspoken Trump loyalist, wrote Wednesday.
Hours after Trump's announcement that she's his pick to lead VOA, Lake applaudedTIME magazine for naming Trump its "Person of the Year" and gushed that he "should have been the Person of the Year every year for the last decade."
Journalists and watchdogs expressed a mixture of alarm and mockery in response to Trump's attempt to elevate Lake to VOA director.
"Kari Lake as (head of) Voice of America is the stuff of parody. Or tragedy," Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, wrote on social media. "VOA matters."
Zeteo's Mehdi Hasan added that "authoritarians love to control and instrumentalize media organizations, especially state-funded ones."
"Good luck to the VOA," he wrote.
VOA is the largest federally funded international broadcaster and is overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media.
It is not clear whether Trump will be able to easily install Lake as VOA director. The Washington Post noted that "under rules passed in 2020, the VOA director is appointed by a majority vote of a seven-member advisory board."
"Six members of the board are named by the president and require Senate consent, and the seventh member is the secretary of state," the Post explained.
During his first term in the White House, Trump's pick to lead the U.S. Agency for Global Media worked aggressively to influence VOA coverage.
"In 2020, Mr. Trump appointed Michael Pack, an ally of his former aide Stephen K. Bannon, to run the U.S. Agency for Global Media," The New York Timessummarized on Thursday. "Mr. Pack was accused of trying to turn Voice of America into a mouthpiece for the Trump administration, and a federal judge ruled that Mr. Pack had violated the First Amendment rights of the outlet's journalists. A federal investigation later found that Mr. Pack had grossly mismanaged the U.S. Agency for Global Media, repeatedly abusing his power by sidelining executives he felt did not sufficiently support Mr. Trump."
The far-right Project 2025 agenda, which some members of the incoming Trump administration helped craft, includes a section that proposes placing the U.S. Agency for Global Media "under the supervision of the [White House National Security Council], the State Department, or both."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular