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, a broad coalition of Texas abortion providers--led by Whole Woman's Health--along with abortion funds, doctors and other organizations, once again asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a case challenging Texas' ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy (S.B. 8). In an attempt to expedite the case, plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to hear the defendants' motions to dismiss the case, which were denied by the district court and then appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where they are currently pending. The plaintiffs have asked that the Supreme Court hear the appeal on an expedited basis, without waiting for a further ruling from the Fifth Circuit.
S.B. 8 has now been in effect for 23 days and has eliminated the vast majority of abortion access in the state. Plaintiffs previously asked the Supreme Court to block the law before it took effect on September 1, which the Court refused to do. Clinics in neighboring states have reported huge upticks in patients traveling from Texas since the law took effect. For instance, an Oklahoma clinic reported that two-thirds of the phone calls they receive are now from Texas patients.
Intervention by the Supreme Court is urgently needed because, despite the great harm the ban is causing, the Fifth Circuit has set a schedule that will not allow the appeal to be heard before December. In a separate lawsuit challenging S.B. 8 in state court--brought by Planned Parenthood providers--the Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel indefinitely stayed all proceedings in the trial court today.
In a separate federal lawsuit, the Department of Justice is suing Texas and requesting that the law be blocked. A preliminary injunction hearing in the DOJ's case has been set for October 1 in district court. In a press conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland said of the law: "This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear."
Yesterday, a copycat bill was introduced in the Florida legislature, and lawmakers in many other states have voiced their intent to introduce similar bills. Tomorrow, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on a federal bill that would protect against abortion bans like the one in Texas, as well as the Mississippi ban that the Supreme Court will hear later this year. That bill--the Women's Health Protection Act--is a response to the hundreds of state laws passed in recent years designed to block access to abortion care.
S.B. 8 bans abortion after six weeks into a pregnancy--before many people even know they're pregnant--and creates a bounty-hunting scheme that encourages the general public to bring costly and harassing lawsuits against anyone who they believe has violated the ban. Anyone who successfully sues a health center worker, an abortion provider, or any person who helps someone access an abortion after six weeks in Texas will be rewarded with at least $10,000, to be paid by the person sued. Lawsuits may be filed against a broad range of people, including: a physician who provides an abortion; a person who drives their friend to obtain an abortion; abortion funds providing financial assistance to patients; health center staff; and even a member of the clergy who assists an abortion patient.
Plaintiffs in this case 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: TX 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 would take 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 defendants' motions to dismiss.
* 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 could take effect on September 1 or allow district court proceedings to resume.
* September 1: S.B. 8 took effect after the Supreme Court did not respond to plaintiffs' request before the law's effective date.
* September 2: 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 returned to the Fifth Circuit for briefing on defendants' appeal of the district court's denial of their motions to dismiss.
* September 10: The Fifth Circuit issued an order explaining its refusal to block the law, and expedited the defendants' appeals to "the next available oral argument panel."
* September 22: the Fifth Circuit issued a briefing schedule that will not allow the case to be heard until at least December.
* September 23 (Today): Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to hear defendants' appeal on an expedited basis. If granted, the case will bypass further proceedings in the Fifth Circuit.
You can read the full petition for writ of certiorari before judgment here.
Quotes from plaintiffs and litigators:
Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman's Health and Whole Woman's Health Alliance:
"For 23 days, we've been forced to deny essential abortion care for the vast majority of patients who come to us. Most of those we've turned away told us they would not be able to make it out of Texas for care. I don't know what happened to these patients after they left our clinics, but I can't stop thinking about them. Forcing our staff to tell patients 'no' day after day is cruel. This chaos must come to an end, and that is why we are going back to the Supreme Court today."
Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:
"We're asking the Supreme Court for this expedited appeal because the Fifth Circuit has done nothing to change the dire circumstances on the ground in Texas. We need this case to move as quickly as possible. Right now, patients are being forced to travel hundreds of miles in the middle of a pandemic to find abortion care. But many people can't afford to do that. We're doing everything we can to block this ban and restore abortion access in Texas."
Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation of America:
"Planned Parenthood call centers have become crisis hotlines and health center staff have become crisis counselors. For three weeks, Texans have been without access to basic health care that is their constitutional right -- forced to travel out of state to get care or carry pregnancies against their will. With this request today, Planned Parenthood, along with our partners, is urging the Supreme Court to move our legal challenge along. Our patients in Texas can't wait. We'll never stop fighting for our patients and will leave no stone unturned in our effort to restore abortion access in Texas."
Julia Kaye, staff attorney, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project:
"For half a century, the Supreme Court has upheld the fundamental right to end a pregnancy. But for the past three weeks, five justices have shrugged their shoulders while Texas politicians do an end-run around the Constitution and impose devastating harm on countless Texans, especially people of color. Already, politicians in other states are lining up to propose copycat bills that insult the Constitution, turn neighbor against neighbor, and force people to suffer the serious risks and pains of pregnancy against their will. It is past time for the Supreme Court to step in and right this grave injustice."
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"This school has been hit five times since the war began. It is home to around 12,000 displaced people, mainly women and children. No one is safe in Gaza. No one is spared."
The United Nations relief agency for Palestine said Wednesday that six of its workers are among the at least 18 people killed in a pair of Israeli airstrikes targeting a U.N. school in the Gaza Strip where thousands of forcibly displaced Palestinians were sheltering.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) said the Israeli strikes on one of its schools, located in Nuseirat in central Gaza, resulted in "the highest death toll among our staff in a single incident" since Israeli forces began bombarding the strip following last October's Hamas-led attack on Israel.
"Among those killed was the manager of the UNRWA shelter and other team members providing assistance to displaced people," the agency said. "Sincere condolences to their families and loved ones. This school has been hit five times since the war began. It is home to around 12,000 displaced people, mainly women and children."
Victims of the strikes included women and children.
Earlier on Wednesday the United Nations said the school had been "previously deconflicted with the Israeli forces."
"No one is safe in Gaza. No one is spared," UNRWA stressed. "Schools and other civilian infrastructure must be protected at all times, they are not a target."
Responding to the attacks, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said on social media that "these dramatic violations of international humanitarian law need to stop now."
Israel is currently on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice, a U.N. body. International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan is also seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders—at least one of whom, Ismail Haniyeh, has been assassinated.
Over the past 341 days, Israel's assault on Gaza has left more than 145,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, according to Palestinian and international officials. Nearly all of Gaza's 2.3 million people have been forcibly displaced, while Israel's "complete siege" of Gaza has starved and sickened millions of Palestinians, dozens of whom have died of malnutrition, dehydration, and lack of medical care.
UNRWA says around 200 of its staff members have been killed in more than 450 Israeli attacks on agency facilities since October. More than 500 Palestinians have been killed while seeking shelter under the U.N. flag.
Responding to Israeli claims—reportedly extracted from Palestinian prisoners in an interrogation regime rife with torture and abuse—that a dozen of the more than 13,000 UNRWA workers in Gaza were involved in the October 7 attack, numerous nations including the United States cut off funding to the agency. Almost all of them have restored funding as Israeli lies have been debunked.
Bucking this trend, U.S. President Joe Biden in March signed a bill prohibiting American funding for UNRWA.
"Using Aiden as a political tool is, to say the least, reprehensible for any political purpose," said Nathan Clark.
A day after the Trump campaign saw fit to spread baseless lies about Haitian immigrants in the city of Springfield, Ohio, a grieving father with a deep connection to the bigoted viral stories was forced to speak out.
Springfield resident Nathan Clark spoke at the City Commission meeting that was held shortly before former President Donald Trump faced Vice President Kamala Harris in Tuesday's debate.
Clark was there to speak on behalf of his son, Aiden, who was tragically killed in August 2023 when a man who had moved to Springfield after immigrating to the U.S. from Haiti accidentally drove into the school bus the boy was riding, sending it into a ditch.
On Monday, without notifying the family in advance or receiving their permission, the Trump campaign posted a photo of Aiden and blamed Harris for his death.
"Using Aiden as a political tool is, to say the least, reprehensible for any political purpose," Clark said Tuesday, adding that politicians who have spoken about his son while attacking immigrants are "morally bankrupt."
"They have spoken my son's name and used his death for political gain," he said.
The child's death was also mentioned by Vance on Monday in a lengthy post on the social media platform X, in which he repeated unverified rumors about Haitian immigrants in Springfield abducting residents' pets and eating them.
"It's possible, of course, that all of these rumors will turn out to be false," said the senator, before adding that "a child was murdered by a Haitian migrant who had no right to be here," and explicitly blaming immigrants for rising rates of communicable diseases like tuberculosis and HIV—claims that health authorities have said are false.
On Tuesday, Clark took Vance to task—along with Republican Senate candidate Bernie Moreno, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), and Trump—for using his son's name for political gain in their attacks on migrants.
The spiraling rumors, he said, had left him wishing that a "60-year-old white man" had caused his son's death.
"If that guy killed my 11-year-old son, the incessant group of hate spewing people would leave us alone," said Clark. "The last thing that we need is to have the worst day of our lives violently and constantly shoved in our faces. Even that's not good enough for them. They take it one step further. They make it seem as though our wonderful Aiden appreciates your hate, that we should follow their hate. And look what you've done to us. We have to get up here and beg them to stop."
Soon after Clark spoke out, Trump once again spread the lie about migrants eating pets in Springfield—which authorities in the city have said are false—at the presidential debate.
Clark suggested that he can't stop Republican politicians who "vomit all the hate they want" about immigration and "untrue claims about fluffy pets being ravaged and eaten by community members."
"However, they are not allowed, nor have they ever been allowed, to mention Aiden Clark from Springfield, Ohio," he said.
"In order to live like Aiden, you need to accept everyone, choose to shine, make the difference, lead the way and be the inspiration," Clark continued. "Did you know that he researched different cultures to better appreciate and understand people that he interacted with? Did you know that one of the worst feelings in the world is to not be able to protect your child? Even worse, we can't even protect his memory when he's gone."
"Please stop the hate," he said. "I said to Aiden that I would try to make a difference in his honor. This is it. Live like Aiden."
"Cutting winter fuel allowance is not a tough choice," Jeremy Corbyn said. "It's the wrong choice—and we will not be fooled by ministers' attempts to feign regret over cruel decisions they don't have to take."
Progressive critics and lawmakers are expressing outrage after the U.K. Parliament on Tuesday voted to cut a winter fuel allowance for millions of Britons, calling the move by the ruling Labour Party, which took power in July, a continuation of the Conservative Party's austerity policies.
The measure turns the allowance, which provides £200 to £300 ($262 to $293) per year to senior citizens for heating bills, into a means-tested program in which only the poorest will qualify. It's expected to reduce the number of people receiving the winter payment from 11.4 million last year to 1.5 million this year. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called it a "tough choice" that was necessary because of the poor state of the British treasury.
A vote to overturn the cut lost 348 to 228 on Tuesday after Labour successfully whipped enough its members of Parliament into supporting the cut. Fifty two Labour MPs abstained, at least 20 of whom had expressed opposition to the plan, and one voted in opposition.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who now represents voters as an independent, condemned Starmer's move.
"Cutting winter fuel allowance is not a tough choice," Corbyn wrote on social media. "It's the wrong choice—and we will not be fooled by ministers' attempts to feign regret over cruel decisions they don't have to take."
"Did he get permission from the Tories to reuse their trademark slogans?" he asked of Starmer in an a Tuesday op-ed in Tribune.
Under the headline, "Austerity Is Labour's Choice," Corybn railed against Starmer and his allies for falling back on the kind of neoliberalism that has dominated the U.K. for decades. He wrote:
It is astonishing to hear government ministers try to pull the wool over the public's eyes. The government knows that there is a range of choices available to them. They could introduce wealth taxes to raise upwards of £10 billion. They could stop wasting public money on private contracts. They could launch a fundamental redistribution of power by bringing water and energy into full public ownership. Instead, they have opted to take resources away from people who were promised things would change. There is plenty of money, it’s just in the wrong hands.
The winter fuel payment was introduced as an unconditional cash transfer in 1997 under then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. Some economists have argued that U.K. pensioners are in better position today than than were then, and thus the payment no longer makes sense; others have noted that in real terms, the payment is far lower than it used to be, due to inflation, and thus had become a relatively insignificant benefit anyway.
However, progressives have called the cuts, which were first proposed after Labour took office and weren't mentioned during the election campaign, far too drastic, given the roughly 10 million people they'll effect. Meanwhile, Corbyn and others have argued that Labour's move marks a loss for universalism and could auger more cuts to come:
A universal system of welfare reduces the stigma attached to those who rely on it, and removes barriers for those who find it difficult to apply (both are reasons why the take-up of means-tested payments is so low). What next for means testing? The state pension? The NHS [National Health Service]?
Some commentators have objected to rich pensioners receiving benefits such as the fuel allowance. Progressives have responded that the money should simply be clawed back through higher tax rates on the wealthy.
"In my view the government should be looking to raise revenues from the wealthiest in society, not working class pensioners," Jon Trickett, the only Labour MP to vote to nix to the cut, said in a statement issued on social media.
Universal programs make it easier to reach all those who need help, progressives argue. The new winter fuel payment will be set up so that only those who receive a Pension Credit or other similar government benefit will be eligible for it. But only 63% of pensioners who qualify for the credit actually receive it, government statistics show. The government has announced a campaign to try to increase uptake of the credit.
Trickett said that he feared it would lead more senior citizens to fall into poverty during what he predicted would be an "extremely difficult" winter for his constituents in West Yorkshire. "After years of obscene profiteering by energy companies, they are hiking bills yet again," he wrote.
Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said the cut would save the treasury £1.4 billion ($1.8 billion) this year. She argues that the Conservatives, who held power from 2010 until July, initially as part of a coalition, left the national finances in a dire state and Labour must fill a £22 billion ($28.7 billion) budgetary "black hole."
Labour hasn't released an official impact assessment of the winter payment measure. Reeves, like Starmer, has said she didn't want to make the cut, but two weeks ago a video clip of her proposing to cut the allowance as an opposition MP in 2014.
Rachel Reeves has repeatedly said she didn't want to cut the universal winter fuel allowance for pensioners but it was a tough decision forced on her because of the financial black hole left by the last govt
Here's Reeves 10 years ago: pic.twitter.com/1BAIL4racv
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) August 28, 2024
Reeves and Starmer have long tried to establish their fiscal prudence and distance themselves from purportedly free-spending progressives in their party. A progressive commentator on Novara Mediacalled their winter allowance cut an "incredible political fumble."