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.
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:
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) 637-3600"Trump cozying up with the industry is wildly unpopular," asserted climate campaigner Jamie Henn.
Noting former U.S. President Donald Trump's coziness with the fossil fuel industry and the fact that an overwhelming majority of voters want politicians to tackle its greed, one prominent climate campaigner urged Vice President Kamala Harris—the Democratic nominee—to highlight her Republican opponent's Big Oil ties during Tuesday night's debate.
"Harris should absolutely go after Trump for being in the pocket of Big Oil," Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn said on social media, adding that "89% of Americans want politicians to crack down on Big Oil price gouging."
In a
separate post, Henn urged ABC News, which is hosting the first—and likely only—2024 presidential debate, to ask the candidates about the climate emergency.
"Ninety-nine percent of Americans have experienced some form of extreme weather this year," he wrote. "If ABC News doesn't ask about the climate crisis this evening, it's journalistic malpractice."
On Tuesday, a trio of Democratic U.S. lawmakers called on fossil fuel executives to comply with a request for "information regarding quid pro quo solicitations" from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who earlier this year promised to gut climate regulations if they donated $1 billion to his Republican presidential campaign.
Climate campaigners have been warning of the dangers of a second term for Trump, who during his previous administration rolled back regulations protecting the climate, environment, and biodiversity, resulting in increased pollution and
premature deaths and fueling catastrophic planetary heating.
"If a Trump administration was merely going to be a four-year interregnum, it would be annoying. But in fact it comes at precisely the moment when we need, desperately,
acceleration," 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben wrote in a Guardian opinion article last week.
"The world's climate scientists have done their best to set out a timetable: Cut emissions in half by 2030 or see the possibilities of anything like the Paris pathway, holding temperature increases to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, disappear," he continued. "That cut is on the bleeding edge of the technically possible, but only if everyone is acting in good faith. And the next presidential term will end in January of 2029, which is 11 months before 2030."
"If we elect Donald Trump, we may feel the effects not for years, and not for a generation," McKibben added. "We may read our mistake in the geological record a million years hence. This one really counts."
"Anti-abortion opponents are trying everything to keep abortion rights questions away from voters—but their dirty tricks keep failing," said one campaigner.
Reproductive freedom defenders on Tuesday cheered the Missouri Supreme Court's restoration of an abortion rights referendum—one of numerous 2024 ballot initiatives seeking to codify access to the healthcare procedure in states from coast to coast.
Missouri's highest court overturned Cole County Judge Christopher Limbaugh's ruling removing Amendment 3—also known as the Right to Reproductive Freedom initiative—from the November 5 ballot. Limbaugh ordered Republican Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who decertified the measure on Monday, to place it back on the ballot.
“The majority of Missourians want politicians out of their exam rooms, and today's decision by the Missouri Supreme Court keeps those politicians out of the voting booth as well," Planned Parenthood Great Rivers Action vice president of external affairs Margot Riphagen
said on social media. "On November 5, Missouri voters will declare their right to reproductive freedom, ensuring decisions about our bodies and our healthcare—including abortion—stay between us, our families, and our providers."
Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project—which provides funding and technical assistance to abortion rights campaigns in Missouri, Arizona, Montana, and Florida—said in a statement that "anti-abortion opponents are trying everything to keep abortion rights questions away from voters—but their dirty tricks keep failing. They know that when voters have a say, reproductive freedom is upheld time and time again."
Chris Hatfield, a lawyer representing abortion rights groups in the case, toldThe New York Times: "This is a big deal. The court will send a message today about whether, in our little corner of the democracy, the government will honor the will of the people, or will have it snatched away."
Missouri has one of the nation's most draconian abortion bans, with the procedure
prohibited in almost all circumstances "except in cases of medical emergency." The ban—which dates to 2019—took effect when the U.S. Supreme Court overturnedRoe v. Wade in 2022.
The Midwestern state joins
at least seven others in which abortion will be on the ballot this November. Every abortion rights ballot measure since the overturn of Roe has passed.
In neighboring Nebraska, the state Supreme Court on Monday
heard arguments in three lawsuits filed by activists trying to keep multiple abortion rights referenda off the ballot.
"You don't have to agree with the tactics of climate activists to understand the importance of defending their rights to protest and to free speech."
Rich Western countries have cracked down on non-violent climate protests with harsh laws and lengthy prison sentences, in violation of international law and the civil rights they champion globally, according to a report released Monday by Climate Rights International.
CRI, an advocacy group based in California, found that Australia, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States had used heavy-handed measures to silence climate protesters in recent years. The measures aren't in keeping with the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association enshrined in international law, the report says.
"You don't have to agree with the tactics of climate activists to understand the importance of defending their rights to protest and to free speech," Brad Adams, CRI's executive director, said in a statement.
"Governments too often take such a strong and principled view about the right to peaceful protest in other countries—but when they don't like certain kinds of protests at home they pass laws and deploy the police to stop them," Adams toldThe Guardian.
“These defenders are basically trying to save the planet... These are people we should be protecting, but are seen by governments & corporations as a threat to be neutralised. In the end it’s about power & economics”
- @MaryLawlorhrdshttps://t.co/WPunhbDhCq
— Dr. Aaron Thierry (@ThierryAaron) September 10, 2024
The CRI report details relevant international law, disproportionate actions taken against climate protestors, and draconian new laws established in four of the countries studied. It also lays out recommendations and proposed reforms. CRI was founded in 2022 with a mission that states, "Progress on climate change cannot succeed without protecting human rights—and the fight for human rights cannot succeed without protecting our planet against climate change."
The examples of government crackdowns on climate protesters are numerous. In October 2022, Just Stop Oil activists Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker climbed the cables of a major bridge in England and remained there for two days, causing police to stop traffic across the bridge. They called for the U.K. to stop licensing new oil and gas projects in the North Sea.
Trowland and Decker were each subsequently sentenced to more than 30 months in prison under a 2022 law passed by the Conservative government that led the country at the time. The sentencing prompted concern from a United Nations special rapporteur. An op-ed published Tuesday in The Guardian by Linda Lakhdhir, CRI's legal director, indicated that the Labour Party, now in power in the U.K., has not made a total break from the Conservatives policies.
A similar U.K. case involved Just Stop Oil's disruption of traffic on a highway in November 2022. Five campaigners, including Roger Hallam, well-known as a co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, had spoken on a Zoom call designed to increase participation in the direct action. This July, they were each sentenced to at least four years in jail, with Hallam receiving a five-year sentence—the longest sentences ever given in the country for non-violent protest, The Guardianreported.
Michel Forst, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on environmental defenders, attended part of the trial and called the sentencing a "dark day for peaceful environmental protest."
The attempt to silence climate protest has gone well beyond the U.K. In late August, a German court sentenced a 65-year-old man to nearly two years in prison for blocking a road as part of a protest. An Australian protester was given 15 months in prison for blocking one lane in a five-lane road for 28 minutes in 2022.
In April 2023, Joanna Smith was one of two protesters who put water-soluble paint on the protective case of a sculpture at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. She faced unexpectedly harsh federal charges—for two felonies—that could have landed her in prison for five years, and ended up making a plea deal for a 60-day sentence. Her fellow protestor, Timothy Martin, has a trial scheduled for November.
The report makes the following four general recommendations for governments:
The final recommendation stems from the fact that some jurisdictions and judges have prevented climate activists from stating the reasons for their civil disobedience in court. A U.K. judge, Silas Reid, has repeatedly denied climate protesters the ability to explain their motivations to juries, and even jailed two of them for contempt of court when they did so anyway.
The U.S. has not passed a harsh federal bill along the lines of the 2022 U.K. law, but many states have placed anti-protest laws on the books in recent years, and other state legislatures have considered measures, the report says. A 2019 Texas law strengthened penalties for protests around pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure, and a 2020 Tennessee law did so for "inconvenient" protests.
Harsh penalties are not the only danger that environmental defenders face. Nearly 200 environmental defenders were killed across the world in 2023, according a report released Tuesday by Global Witness.
Crackdowns on non-violent protest in rich Western countries extend beyond the issue of climate. Pro-Palestinian campus protests in the U.S. have also seen harsh crackdowns in the past year, with fears among campaigners that anti-protest measures could increase.
The report posits that governments should take a different approach to such civil disobedience, given its importance in spurring social change in the past.
"Governments should welcome peaceful protests as the sign of an engaged citizenry," the report says. "Those who engage in peaceful protest should, at a minimum, be assured that their rights will be respected."