

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.

Center for Reproductive Rights: center.press@reprorights.org
Planned Parenthood Federation of America: media.office@ppfa.org
ACLU: media@aclu.org
ACLU of Texas: media@aclutx.org
The Lawyering Project: media@lawyeringproject.org
Whole Woman’s Health: press@wholewomanshealth.com
Today, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson - once the most promising lawsuit against Texas' ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy (S.B. 8) - cannot proceed against the Texas Medical Board and other similar state licensing officials, the only remaining defendants in that challenge. This ruling comes after the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed most of the case in December 2021, allowing only a small part of the case to move forward in lower court. Today's ruling will result in dismissal of the remaining portion of the challenge to the 6-week ban, meaning S.B. 8 will likely remain in effect for the foreseeable future.
The case was filed in July 2021 by abortion providers, funds and other advocates in Texas seeking to block S.B. 8. Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block the ban numerous times and finally dismissed most of the case three months ago, ruling that federal courts are powerless to block this kind of citizen-enforced law despite its blatant attack on established constitutional rights. The only part of the case that was allowed to move forward was against the Texas Medical Board and other state licensing officials, seeking to prevent them from taking disciplinary actions against doctors and other health professionals who provided abortion care in violation of S.B. 8. Today, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that these officials do not have the authority to revoke licenses for violations of S.B. 8, leaving no other defendants against which the case can proceed. The ban remains in place, including the bounty-hunting scheme, which puts a $10,000 bounty on the head of anyone who provides an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy or helps someone obtain an abortion past that point.
Clinics in neighboring states have reported huge upticks in Texas patients since S.B. 8 took effect, resulting in weeks-long wait times. At Hope Medical Group--an abortion clinic in Louisiana--64% of their current patients are Texas residents. Planned Parenthood released data in February showing that, in the first four months after S.B. 8 took effect, more than half of the patients at their Oklahoma health centers were from Texas, compared to less than 10% in the prior year. Many other Texans have been unable to travel out of state and have been forced to carry their pregnancies to term or attempt to manage an abortion on their own. The impact has fallen hardest on marginalized communities, including people living on low incomes, and Black and brown communities.
Already this year, ten states have introduced bills copying S.B. 8. In Oklahoma, the legislature is expected to pass a copycat bill by the end of the month, which has an immediate effective date. That means by the end of March, abortion may be banned after 6 weeks in Oklahoma--a state where many Texans have been traveling to find abortion services. Other states that have introduced copycat bills include: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
The plaintiffs in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson include Whole Woman's Health; Whole Woman's Health Alliance; eleven Planned Parenthood health centers throughout the state; Southwestern Women's Surgical Center; Austin Women's Health Center; Alamo Women's Reproductive Services; Houston Women's Reproductive Services; Dr. Allison Gilbert and Dr. Bhavik Kumar, who provide abortion services; Reverend Erika Forbes and Reverend Daniel Kanter, who provide emotional and spiritual counseling and support to patients considering abortion; the Afiya Center; Frontera Fund; Fund Texas Choice (FTC); Jane's Due Process; Lilith Fund; the TEA Fund; and Marva Sadler, Senior Director of Clinical Services at Whole Woman's Health.
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, Morrison & Foerster LLP, and Austin attorney Christen Mason Hebert.
A timeline of Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson available here.
Quotes from plaintiffs and litigators:
Statement from Amy Hagstrom Miller, President and CEO of Whole Woman's Health and Whole Woman's Health Alliance:
"We have been fighting this ban for six long months, but the courts have failed us. All the while, our Texas clinics have been open - and that is a testament to the commitment and resilience of our staff and doctors. This ban does not change the need for abortion in Texas, it just blocks people from accessing the care they need. The situation is becoming increasingly dire, and now neighboring states--where we have been sending patients--are about to pass similar bans. Where will Texans go then? The more states that pass these bans, the harder it will be for anyone in this region to get abortion care. Texans deserve better."
Statement from Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:
"We are in a moment of crisis not only for reproductive rights but for our justice system and the rule of law. With this ruling, the sliver of this case that we were left with is gone. An unconstitutional ban on abortion after six weeks continues unchecked in the state of Texas. The courts have allowed Texas to nullify a constitutional right. We will continue to do everything in our power to right this wrong."
Statement from Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America:
"Today is a devastating day for people in Texas and anyone who believes in the right to control their own body, life, and future. Over and over again the courts have failed Texans, who have been stripped of their fundamental right to abortion for more than six months now. Because of the U.S. Supreme Court's repeated refusal to intervene for more than half a year, Texans are living in a state of sustained chaos, crisis, and confusion - and there is no end in sight. Tragically, this attack on reproductive freedom now continues uninterrupted in Texas and across the country. Politicians have the green light to move forward with their own unconstitutional abortion bans, decimating access to abortion state by state, region by region. We are already seeing these attacks in Idaho, Florida, Arizona, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and more states. Our patients and providers deserve so much better. Everyone -- no matter where you live or how much money you make -- deserves access to essential health care, free of barriers or political roadblocks."
Statement from Julia Kaye, staff attorney, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project:
"The courts have once again failed Texans. This is another devastating injustice, and people will continue to be denied the basic human dignity of being able to control their own body. Some have been able to overcome this cruel law through the extraordinary support of abortion funds and the reproductive rights and justice movement to get abortion care very early in Texas or travel out of state. But too many others have been denied abortion care altogether, and the brunt of this horrific law has fallen on the most marginalized people, including people of color and people with the fewest resources. The public cannot stand by while extremist politicians and cowardly courts strip away our civil rights. We won't stop fighting and we will do everything we can to stem the suffering that has resulted from this unprecedented crisis."
Statement from Blair Wallace, policy & advocacy strategist, ACLU of Texas:
"By dismissing our case and allowing overzealous politicians to win in their gambit to override the U.S. Constitution, the Texas Supreme Court ignored what is happening in its backyard. Every day, Texans, especially Black and Latinx Texans, are bearing the physical and mental health risks of being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will. And every day, in Texas, the Constitution's promise to protect us from these harms has been made meaningless. But we will never stop fighting in the streets and at the legislature for the justice and compassion so sorely lacking in SB 8 and in the shameful judicial decisions upholding it.
Statement from Rupali Sharma, Senior Counsel and Project Director at the Lawyering Project:
"For over half a year, S.B. 8 has forced Texans who need an abortion to uproot their lives amid a pandemic and travel out of state for care, significantly delaying their abortions. And that's the best-case scenario. Despite the extraordinary efforts of abortion funds and practical support organizations, all too many Texans ultimately lack the resources or mobility to access abortion at great distances from home and thus face the devastating consequences of unwanted pregnancy. Today's ruling means that this cruelty will continue at enormous costs to Texans and their families."
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"It is astonishing that any president would try to target, shame, and harass children just trying to be themselves, let alone a president with so many actual problems to address," said the state attorney general.
The US Department of Justice on Monday continued President Donald Trump's crusade against transgender youth competing in sports in line with their identity by suing the Minnesota Department of Education and the state's high school league.
"The United States files this action to stop Minnesota's unapologetic sex discrimination against female student athletes," says the complaint, filed in a federal court in the state by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.
"The state of Minnesota, through its Department of Education, and the Minnesota State High School League require girls to compete against boys in athletic competitions that are designated exclusively for girls and share intimate spaces, such as multiperson locker rooms and bathrooms, with boys," the complaint continues. "This unfair, intentionally discriminatory practice violates the very core of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972."
The Associated Press noted that "the administration has filed similar lawsuits against Maine and California, and has threatened the federal funding of some universities over transgender athletes, including San José State in California and the University of Pennsylvania."
Tim Leighton, a spokesperson for the league, told the AP that it does not comment on threatened or pending lawsuits. According to The New York Times, Emily Buss, a spokesperson for the state department, said Minnesota's leadership was reviewing the complaint while remaining "committed to ensuring every child—regardless of background, ZIP code, or ability—has access to a world-class education."
While Trump and his allies have aimed to stop all trans women and girls from competing as they identify—including at the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles—the fight with Minnesota specifically traces back to the president's February 2025 executive order, after which the administration began investigating the state.
The Minnesota Department of Education gets over $3 billion in federal funding. Democratic state Attorney General Keith Ellison sued to stop the administration from pulling that money last April. In September, the US departments of Education and Health and Human Services concluded that the state agency and league violated Title IX, and the case was referred to the DOJ in January.
In a Monday statement, Ellison said that the DOJ's lawsuit "is just a sad attempt to get attention over something that's already been in litigation for months."
"Donald Trump is currently facing an unpopular war that he launched, rising gas prices, massive health insurance price hikes, and a partial government shutdown caused in part by his ICE agents killing two Minnesotans in broad daylight," Ellison said, referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "It is astonishing that any president would try to target, shame, and harass children just trying to be themselves, let alone a president with so many actual problems to address."
The DOJ filing about trans student-athletes came less than a week after Ellison and other Minnesota officials sued the Trump administration over its refusal to cooperate with state investigators probing the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents earlier this year, as well as the shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who was wounded but survived.
“Trump has shown he will abuse every inch of power we give him," said one critic. "So you would think that given an opportunity to check his authority and protect Americans, Democrats would jump at the chance."
Critics denounced the top Democrat on the US House Intelligence Committee after he said Monday that he would vote to extend a highly controversial authorization for warrantless government spying sought by President Donald Trump that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times under various administrations.
While acknowledging that many of his Democratic colleagues will vote against reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because they do not trust Trump to use the provision's sweeping surveillance powers legally, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) signaled that he would support renewal and vote against any efforts for privacy protections.
“There’s a lot of people who are going to switch from yes two years ago to no today," Himes told The Hill. "Because even though Donald Trump’s been president for five years, and he has never abused the program—I would know it pretty much in real time if he did—even though that’s true, people don’t trust Donald Trump."
"And you know, that word came up a lot in the classified briefing; there’s a huge trust gap here," he added. "So there’s going to be a lot of people switching on the Democratic side from yes to no.”
While Section 702 ostensibly limits warrantless surveillance to non-US citizens, such spying also captures the communications of Americans. The measure has been abused at least hundreds of thousands of times, including to spy on protestors, congressional donors, journalists, and others.
“Donald Trump has shown he will abuse every inch of power we give him," Sean Vitka, executive director of the pro-democracy group Demand Progress, said in a statement Monday. "So you would think that given an opportunity to check his authority and protect Americans, Democrats would jump at the chance."
"But instead, Rep. Jim Himes is failing his critical role as an overseer of intelligence agencies and using his political power to lobby his fellow Democrats in service of the Trump administration domestic surveillance agenda," Vitka continued. "It is unforgivably cynical and reckless for Rep. Himes to make it easier for this administration to spy on Americans, especially at a time when government agencies’ have made it clear that they intend to supercharge surveillance with [artificial intelligence], and when their misuse of these powers is horrifically on display.”
Nearly 100 civil society groups including Demand Progress are urging congressional Democrats to "stand firm" and vote against Section 702 reauthorization without reforms, including closing the so-called data broker loophole.
Among the Democratic lawmakers reportedly considering voting against the extension is Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who voted for reauthorizing Section 702 in 2024—when Congress extended the spying power until April 20, 2026.
“I supported it because I felt very comfortable that... additional guardrails were safeguarding Americans’ privacy in a sufficiently significant way as to justify the importance of getting this information on an urgent basis," he told The Hill. "And as a former prosecutor, I know how difficult it can be to get a search warrant, and especially in these cases where there often isn’t even probable cause, but my vote was taken on the expectation that the law would be implemented as written."
“And we now have an administration that has routinely, repeatedly, regularly—and seemingly and intentionally—violated numerous laws, undermined the Constitution, attacked our democracy, and simply cannot be trusted with the privacy information that is included in the materials gathered and potentially searched," Goldman continued.
"So unless I receive a lot more information about every single search for a US person that has been done by this administration since they came into office, I don’t see how I can possibly support the reauthorization," he added.
"Right now the US and Israel are realizing 'Greater Israel' by attacking-invading Lebanon and Iran," said one professor. "Hegseth is saying it's Greenland, Cuba, Canada, and Mexico next."
Alarm mounted Monday over the Trump administration's "Greater North America" plan, a geopolitical blueprint for US imperial hegemony from Greenland to Guyana that's drawing comparisons with a messianic project being pushed by President Donald Trump's far-right allies and war partners in Israel.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth first unveiled the plan earlier this month, telling reporters: "Trump has drawn a new strategic map, from Greenland to the Gulf of America to the Panama Canal and its surrounding countries. At the Department of War we call this strategic map the Greater North America."
"Why? Because every sovereign nation and territory north of the Equator, from Greenland to Ecuador and from Alaska to Guyana, is not part of the 'Global South,'" Hegseth added. "It is our immediate security perimeter in this great neighborhood that we all live in."
Graeme Garrard, a Canadian professor at Cardiff University in Wales, said Monday on social media in response to Hegseth's comments: "By 'Greater North America' he means 'Greater United States. The US is now and has long been a menace and threat to the sovereignty and independence of its hemispheric neighbors."
Numerous observers have compared Trump's "Greater America" with the "Greater Israel" movement, whose most zealous proponents want to conquer everything between the Nile and Euphrates rivers—that is, all of Palestine, Lebanon, and Jordan; most of Syria and Kuwait; large parts of Egypt and Iraq; and some of Turkey—for Israel.
"Hesgeth's 'Greater North America' should be taken VERY seriously as a real threat," University of Lausanne professor Julia Steinberger, who is Swiss-American, said on social media. "Right now the US and Israel are realizing 'Greater Israel' by attacking-invading Lebanon and Iran. Hegseth is saying it's Greenland, Cuba, Canada, and Mexico next."
Based on the biblical boundaries of ancient Jewish kingdoms, Greater Israel is rooted in the supremacist supposition that the Abrahamic deity figure God promised the Jews all of the lands between the Nile and Euphrates.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—and other prominent right-wing Israelis support the Greater Israel vision and are working to make it a reality by accelerating the illegal settler colonization and ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, preparing to annex the dwindling Palestinian territories, and planning to occupy—perhaps permanently—parts of Syria and Lebanon.
For nearly two centuries, claims of divine favor have also underpinned US expansionism, most famously expressed in Manifest Destiny and mid-19th century plans to annex lands "from the Arctic to the Tropic." This notion drove the US conquest of half of Mexico, as well as later takeovers of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. The US also took control over the Panama Canal, which it built at the cost of thousands of laborers' lives, most of them from Barbados and other West Indies isles.
"It is part of the great law of progress that the weak should give way to the strong, and that the superior should displace the inferior races," one New Orleans newspaper opined in 1848.
Nearly 178 years later, Hegseth echoed this supremacist ideology, telling Latin American leaders that the region must remain "Christian nations under God" and stand united in the face of "radical narco-communism."
Like the 19th century US imperialists, Trump has also repeatedly expressed his goal of "taking Cuba"—an objective that goes back over 200 years, when Thomas Jefferson, then a former president, called the island “the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of states."