March, 11 2022, 01:09pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
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
Texas Supreme Court Decision Means Abortion Ban Challenge Will Be Thrown Out
Scores of Texans have been denied abortion care in the state since the U.S. Supreme Court let the law take effect on September 1.
WASHINGTON
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) 637-3600LATEST NEWS
Rick Scott Pushes Amendment to GOP Budget Bill That Could Kick Millions More Off Medicaid
Scott's proposal for more draconian cuts has renewed scrutiny regarding his past as a hospital executive, where he oversaw the "largest government fraud settlement ever," which included stealing from Medicaid.
Jun 30, 2025
Sen. Rick Scott has introduced an amendment to the Republican budget bill that would slash another $313 million from Medicaid and kick off millions more recipients.
The latest analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that 17 million people could lose their health insurance by 2034 as the result of the bill as it already exists.
According to a preliminary estimate by the Democrats on the Joint Congressional Economic Committee, that number could balloon up to anywhere from 20 to 29 million if Scott's (R-Fla.) amendment passes.
The amendment will be voted on as part of the Senate's vote-a-rama, which is expected to run deep into Monday night and possibly into Tuesday morning.
"If Sen. Rick Scott's amendment gets put forward, this would be a self-inflicted healthcare crisis," said Tahra Hoops, director of economic analysis at Chamber of Progress.
The existing GOP reconciliation package contains onerous new restrictions, including new work requirements and administrative hurdles, that will make it harder for poor recipients to claim Medicaid benefits.
Scott's amendment targets funding for the program by ending the federal government's 90% cost sharing for recipients who join Medicaid after 2030. Those who enroll after that date would have their medical care reimbursed by the federal government at a lower rate of 50%.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) introduced the increased rate in 2010 to incentivize states to expand Medicaid, allowing more people to be covered.
Scott has said his program would "grandfather" in those who had already been receiving the 90% reimbursement rate.
However, Medicaid is run through the states, which will have to spend more money to keep covering those who need the program after 2030.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that this provision "would shift an additional $93 billion in federal Medicaid funding to states from 2031 through 2034 on top of the cuts already in the Senate bill."
This will almost certainly result in states having to cut back, by introducing their stricter requirements or paperwork hurdles.
Additionally, nine states have "trigger laws" that are set to end the program immediately if the federal matching rate is reduced: Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.
The Joint Congressional Economic Committee estimated Tuesday that around 2.5 million more people will lose their insurance as a result of those cuts.
If all the states with statutory Medicaid expansion ended it as a result of Scott's cuts, as many as 12.5 million could lose their insurance. Combined with the rest of the bill, that's potentially 29 million people losing health insurance coverage, the committee said.
A chart shows how many people are estimated to lose healthcare coverage with each possible version of the GOP bill.(Chart: Congressional Joint Economic Committee Democrats)
There are enough Republicans in the Senate to pass the bill with Scott's amendment. However, they can afford no more than three defections. According to Politico, Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) have signaled they will vote against the amendment.
Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.V.) also said he'd "have a hard time" voting yes on the bill if Scott's amendment passed. His state of West Virginia has the second-highest rate of people using federal medical assistance of any state in the country, behind only Mississippi.
Critics have called out Scott for lying to justify this line of cuts. In a recent Fox News appearance, Scott claimed that his new restrictions were necessary to stop Democrats who want to "give illegal aliens Medicaid benefits," even though they are not eligible for the program.
Scott's proposal has also brought renewed scrutiny to his past as a healthcare executive.
"Ironically enough, some of the claims against Scott's old hospital company revolved around exploiting Medicaid, and billing for services that patients didn't need," wrote Andrew Perez in Rolling Stone Monday.
In 2000, Scott's hospital company, HCA, was forced to pay $840 million in fines, penalties, and damages to resolve claims of unlawful billing practices in what was called the "largest government fraud settlement ever." Among the charges were that during Scott's tenure, the company overbilled Medicare and Medicaid by pretending patients were sicker than they actually were.
The company entered an additional settlement in 2003, paying out another $631 million to compensate for the money stolen from these and other government programs.
Scott himself was never criminally charged, but resigned in 1997 as the Department of Justice began to probe his company's activities. Despite the scandal, Scott not only became a U.S. senator, but is the wealthiest man in Congress, with a net worth of more than half a billion dollars.
The irony of this was not lost on Perez, who wrote: "A few decades later, Scott is now trying to extract a huge amount of money from state Medicaid funds to help finance Trump's latest round of tax cuts for the rich."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Historic Heatwave Grips Europe, Coalition Says 'No to a Climate Law for Polluters'
"Will the European Commission propose a climate law that ends fossil fuel use and reflects the E.U.'s fair share of climate responsibility? Or will it choose political convenience?"
Jun 30, 2025
As yet another dangerous heatwave pushes temperatures well into the triple digits across much of Europe, climate defenders on Monday renewed calls for stronger action to combat the planetary emergency—including by ensuring that the impending European Climate Law ends fossil fuel use and eschews false solutions including international carbon offsetting.
Croatia, France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain are among the countries where near- or record-high temperatures have been recorded. Portugal and Spain both recorded their hottest-ever June days over the weekend. El Granado in southwestern Spain saw the mercury soar to nearly 115°C (46°C) on Saturday. The heatwave is expected to continue into the middle of the week, with authorities warning of elevated wildfire risk and potential severe health impacts.
"Extreme heat is no longer a rare event—it has become the new normal," United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said Sunday on social media. "I'm experiencing it firsthand in Spain during the Financing for Development Conference. The planet is getting hotter and more dangerous—no country is immune. We need more ambitious #ClimateAction now."
On Monday, Real Zero Europe—"a campaign calling on the European Union to deliver real emissions reductions and real solutions to the climate crisis, instead of corporate greenwashed 'net zero' targets"—published a call for an E.U. Climate Law that does not contain provisions for international carbon offsetting, in which countries or corporations compensate for their greenhouse gas emissions by funding projects that reduce emissions in other nations.
🔴 OUT NOW📢 69 NGOs call on the EU to deliver a Climate Law that rejects international carbon offsetting & Carbon Dioxide Removals (#CDR), commits to a full fossil fuel phase-out, and reflects Europe’s fair share of climate responsibility!Read the statement👇www.realzeroeurope.org/resources/st...
[image or embed]
— Real Zero Europe (@realzeroeurope.bsky.social) June 30, 2025 at 2:40 AM
A draft proposal of the legislation published Monday by Politico revealed that the European Commission will allow E.U. member states to outsource climate efforts to Global South nations staring in 2036, despite opposition from the 27-nation bloc's independent scientific advisory board. The outsourcing will enable the E.U. to fund emissions-reducing projects in developing nations and apply those reductions to Europe's own 2040 target—which is a 90% net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels.
The proposal also embraces carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies like carbon capture and storage, whose scalability is unproven. Climate groups call them false solutions that prolong the fossil fuel era.
"E.U. climate policy stands at a crossroads: Will the European Commission propose a climate law that ends fossil fuel use and reflects the E.U.'s fair share of climate responsibility?" the Real Zero Europe letter says. "Or will it choose political convenience—abandoning that goal under pressure from corporate and populist interests, and turning to risky, unjust carbon offsetting and other false solutions?"
"Taking responsibility for the E.U.'s past and present role in causing the climate crisis means doubling down on a just and full fossil fuel phaseout not hiding behind false solutions as currently proposed," the letter continues. "The law as planned will send a dangerous signal far beyond E.U. borders. The climate and biodiversity crises are already harming people, especially vulnerable communities and populations largely in the Global South, who have least contributed to the climate crisis."
The 69 groups stress that international carbon offsetting "is a smokescreen for giving license to fossil fuel use beyond 2050" that diverts critical resources and public funds from real climate solutions and climate finance."
"Given the scale of climate catastrophe, for the E.U. to allow international offsets and technological CDR gives a lifeline to polluting industries such as the fossil fuel, agribusiness, plastics, and petrochemical industries," the letter states.
"We say no to an E.U. Climate Law that puts polluting industries over people and climate by embracing the use of international offsets and CDR approaches," the letter's signers said. "We call on the Commission to deliver an E.U. Climate Law and its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the U.N. climate negotiations that clearly reflects the bloc's responsibility for the climate crisis. That means a full fossil fuel phaseout and a just transition."
This heatwave is brutal. Temperatures above 40°C in June across France, Spain, Italy...We still hear from right-wing politicians that “it’s just summer.” It’s not. This is the climate crisis courtesy of the fossil fuels industry. It’s not normal.
[image or embed]
— European Greens (@europeangreens.eu) June 30, 2025 at 7:01 AM
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk also addressed the European heatwave on Monday, saying that "the climate crisis is a human rights crisis."
"Rising temperatures, rising seas, floods, droughts, and wildfires threaten our rights to life, to health, to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, and much more," he continued. "The heatwave we are currently experiencing here shows us the importance of adaptation measures, without which human rights would be severely impacted."
"It is equally clear that our current production and consumption patterns are unsustainable, and that renewables are the energy source of the future," Türk asserted. "Production capacity for renewables increased five-fold between 2011 and 2023. What we need now is a roadmap that shows us how to rethink our societies, economies and politics in ways that are equitable and sustainable. That is, a just transition."
"This shift requires an end to the production and use of fossil fuels and other environmentally destructive activities across all sectors—from energy to farming to finance to construction and beyond," he added. "This will be one of the greatest transformations our world has ever seen."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Hell No,' Say Critics as Trump's Megabill Poised to Drastically Expand ICE's Dragnet
"This is the level of funding where all the possibilities for American politics that have been described as hyperbolic over the past decades—the comparisons to Nazi Germany and other nightmares of the 20th century—become logistically possible and politically likely," wrote one observer.
Jun 30, 2025
Critics are sounding the alarm as congressional Republicans edge closer to passing a sweeping tax and spending bill desired by U.S. President Donald Trump that would inject tens of billions of dollars of funding into U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency at the forefront of the president's immigration crackdown.
"Republicans' Big, Bad Betrayal Bill shovels BILLIONS OF DOLLARS more into ICE's budget. Yes, the same ICE that has arrested U.S. citizens, carried out illegal deportations, and denied members of Congress access to detention facilities. HELL NO," wrote Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on X on Sunday.
On Monday, the Senate kicked off a vote-a-rama process where senators can demand an unlimited number of votes on amendments to the reconciliation package.
While negotiations on the legislation are still ongoing, the version of the reconciliation bill that was narrowly advanced in the Senate on Saturday includes $29.85 billion for ICE to "remain available through September 30, 2029" for personnel recruitment, technology for "enforcement and removal operations," and other priorities. It also includes $45 billion "for single adult alien detention capacity and family residential center capacity," also available through the same period.
The bill text also includes $46.5 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to spend on border infrastructure, to remain available through September 30, 2029.
Journalist Nicolae Viorel Butler, who reports on immigration for the outlet Migrant Insider, reported on Sunday that all told the measure proposes in excess of $175 billion in "direct immigration-related funding for fiscal year 2025."
This, Butler wrote, reflects "a historic expansion of immigration enforcement operations under a Republican-controlled Congress and the Trump administration."
This money would be a big addition on top of what these agencies already receive. For example, a National Immigration Forum explainer focused on the House version of the reconciliation package noted that $45 billion for ICE detention capacity constitutes an 800% increase in detention funding compared to fiscal year 2024.
"This is the level of funding where all the possibilities for American politics that have been described as hyperbolic over the past decades—the comparisons to Nazi Germany and other nightmares of the 20th century—become logistically possible and politically likely," wrote the philosopher Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò on Bluesky, commenting on the infusion of funding.
In every state, immigration arrests carried out by ICE have sharply increased. Also the number of those arrested and detained by ICE who have no criminal record is up more than 1,400% compared to a year ago, according to The Washington Post.
Increased funding for ICE and immigration enforcement is not the only part of the bill drawing scrutiny.
In May, nonpartisan budget scorekeepers said that the U.S. House of Representatives-passed version of the legislation would, if passed, cut household resources for the bottom 10% of Americans while delivering gains to the wealthiest in the form of tax breaks. Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, called the House version of the legislation the "the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in U.S. history."
"If the Republican budget passes, a lot of Americans will indeed suffer. But so too will millions of noncitizens who came to the U.S. seeking better lives for themselves and their families," wrotePost columnist Philip Bump of the increase in funding for ICE.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular