

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 coalition of Oklahoma abortion providers and a reproductive justice organization filed two separate challenges in state court to block two different abortion bans passed during the 2022 state legislative session. The six-week Texas-style abortion ban (S.B. 1503;challenge linked here), which passed today with no debate or questions allowed, would become effective immediately upon Gov. Kevin Stitt's signature. The other ban (S.B. 612; challenge linked here) would make providing an abortion a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and/or a $100,000 fine. The challenge to S.B. 1503 was filed directly in Oklahoma Supreme Court. The challenge to S.B. 612, filed in trial court, was added to an existing case challenging other abortion restrictions enacted in 2021 that are currently blocked.
S.B. 1503
S.B. 1503 creates a bounty-hunting scheme similar to Texas's S.B. 8, which encourages the general public to bring costly and harassing lawsuits against anyone they believe has provided or aided providing abortion in violation of the ban. Under this scheme, anyone who successfully sues an abortion provider, a health center worker, or any person who helps someone access an abortion after about six weeks in Oklahoma would be rewarded with at least $10,000. This scheme has successfully banned most abortions in Texas since it took effect in September 2021, with devastating effects on patients who are forced to flee the state for care, seek abortion outside the health care system, or carry pregnancies against their will.
Oklahoma will become the second state this year, after Idaho, to follow Texas's example in attempting to cut patients off from abortions at the earliest stages of pregnancy even while Roe still stands. In a move reserved for constitutional crises and other urgent situations, the challenge to S.B. 1503 was filed directly in Oklahoma Supreme Court. Petitioners requested an emergency order blocking the law from taking effect while litigation on the merits of the law proceeds. Although federal challenges to Texas's similar ban have been unsuccessful in blocking the law, there is significant precedent in Oklahoma state court to support plaintiffs' arguments for relief preventing this ban from going into effect.
S.B. 612
The other ban challenged today (S.B. 612) is a total ban on abortion in Oklahoma that is set to take effect in late summer 2022. S.B. 612 was signed into law by Gov. Kevin Stitt on April 12 and would make providing an abortion a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and/or a $100,000 fine. Today's filing seeks to add a challenge to S.B. 612 to an existing case - Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. O'Connor - which was filed in state court last year against a slew of abortion restrictions passed in 2021. Those included a ban on abortion as early as six weeks of pregnancy and a separate total abortion ban, which declared that providing any abortions qualifies as "unprofessional conduct" by physicians resulting in loss of licensure. All five laws challenged in the original suit are currently blocked. In today's filing, the plaintiffs requested to have S.B. 612 temporarily blocked like these other laws as litigation moves forward.
Quotes from attorneys and plaintiffs
"The Oklahoma Supreme Court has repeatedly found that the state legislature's extreme attempts to restrict abortion are unconstitutional, and these bans are some of the most extreme yet," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "We are asking the state courts to uphold the State Constitution and apply Oklahoma precedent to block these insidious abortion bans before they take effect. Oklahoma is a critical state for abortion access right now, with many Texans fleeing to Oklahoma for abortion care. These bans would further decimate abortion access across the South."
"To limit a person's freedom and autonomy is unconscionable and unconstitutional. Unless these abortion bans are stopped, Oklahomans will be robbed of the freedom to control their own bodies and futures," said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "For more than seven months, Oklahoma abortion providers have taken in patients forced to leave Texas for essential care. The governor may joke about stopping people from crossing the Oklahoma border for abortion, but this is no laughing matter. Unless these bans are blocked, patients will be turned away, people seeking abortion will be unable to access essential care in their own communities, and their loved ones could be stopped from supporting them due to fear of being sued. We've told Oklahoma politicians loud and clear: keep your bans off our bodies. Today, we're taking the state to court to stop these bans from robbing Oklahomans of abortion access."
"These abortion bans will push abortion access out of reach for many communities who already face often insurmountable barriers to health care, including Black and brown communities, low-income communities, and people who live in rural areas," said Tamya Cox-Toure, co-chair, Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice. "These are the same communities who are most impacted by the maternal health crisis occurring in our country and in our state. The lawmakers who passed these bans do not care about access to healthcare, and we can't allow this law to take effect."
"As a physician who also provides abortions in Texas, I have seen firsthand the impact of a bounty-hunting scheme and abortion ban on patients and physicians," said Dr. Alan Braid, owner, Tulsa Women's Reproductive Clinic. "They are designed to threaten and intimidate physicians into not providing constitutionally protected health care, and force pregnant people to travel hundreds of miles to receive care. The pain this has caused in Texas is unfathomable, and I will fight alongside these other providers and advocates to prevent this law from taking effect in Oklahoma."
"Patients who are crossing state lines to get abortion services have the exact same question we do: why are their rights to make personal medical decisions less protected in one state than in another?" said Emily Wales, interim president and CEO, Planned Parenthood Great Plains. "Planned Parenthood Great Plains' providers have served thousands of Texans in the past seven months because of their state's harsh bounty-hunting scheme, and we have been proud to stand with them and provide essential, constitutionally protected abortion services. Now, rather than serving as a haven for patients unable to get care at home, Oklahoma politicians have made outcasts of their own people. With today's filings, we lift up the patients who will otherwise be unable to get care and ask the court to do its most essential function: honor the constitution and the individuals who need its protections."
If any of the abortion bans the legislature has passed in this session or the last take effect, abortion access will be almost entirely cut off for the thousands of patients who receive abortions in Oklahoma each year. The bans would also decimate abortion access for surrounding states: Since Texas's S.B. 8 took effect, Oklahoma clinics have reported huge upticks in Texas patients, resulting in weeks-long wait times. 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 its Oklahoma health centers were from Texas, compared to less than 10% in the prior year. Overall, during that period, these Oklahoma health centers saw a nearly 2500% increase in Texas patients.
The challenge to S.B. 1503 was filed in Oklahoma Supreme Court against the State of Oklahoma and all 77 state court clerks. The plaintiffs - Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice, Dr. Alan Braid, Tulsa Women's Reproductive Clinic, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma - are represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Blake Patton.
Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. O'Connor (to which the challenge to S.B. 612 was added today) was filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Dechert LLP, and Blake Patton on behalf of the Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice, Tulsa Women's Reproductive Clinic, Dr. Alan Braid, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma.
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) 637-3600US President Donald Trump declared that Venezuela will hand over up to 50 million barrels of oil—which could be sold for around $3 billion.
US President Donald Trump claimed late Tuesday that Venezuela's interim leadership will turn over to the United States as many as 50 million barrels of sanctioned oil to be sold at market price, part of a broader, unlawful administration effort to seize the South American nation's natural resources.
Trump, who authorized the illegal US bombing of Venezuela and abduction of its president this past weekend, said he would control the proceeds of the sale—which could amount to $3 billion.
"Just straight-up piracy and extortion from the US president," journalist Mehdi Hasan wrote in response.
Consistent with his administration's conduct since the weekend attack that killed at least 75 people in Venezuela, Trump provided few details on how his scheme would work or how it would comply with domestic and international law, both of which the president has repeatedly disregarded and treated with contempt.
It's also not clear that Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela's acting president and an ally of Nicolás Maduro, has agreed to Trump's plan, which he announced on social media as his administration worked to entice US oil giants to take part in its effort to exploit the South American nation's vast reserves.
Ahead of the US attack on Venezuela, the Trump administration imposed a blockade on sanctioned oil tankers approaching or leaving Venezuela, pushing the country closer to economic collapse. The New York Times noted Tuesday that Trump's decision to "begin targeting tankers carrying Venezuelan crude to Asian markets had paralyzed the state oil company’s exports."
"To keep the wells pumping, the state oil company, known as PDVSA, had been redirecting crude oil into storage tanks and turning tankers idling in ports into floating storage facilities," the Times reported. During Trump's first White House term, he banned US companies from working with PDVSA.
Trump wrote in his social media post Tuesday that the tens of millions of barrels of oil "will be taken by storage ships, and brought directly to unloading docks in the United States."
"I have asked Energy Secretary Chris Wright to execute this plan, immediately," Trump wrote.
The Trump administration is also pushing Venezuela's interim leadership to meet a series of US demands before it can pump more oil, ABC News reported late Tuesday. Trump has illegally threatened to launch another attack on Venezuela, and target more of its politicians, if the country's leadership doesn't follow his administration's orders.
According to ABC, the Trump administration has instructed Venezuela to "kick out China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba and sever economic ties."
"Second, Venezuela must agree to partner exclusively with the US on oil production and favor America when selling heavy crude oil," ABC added, citing unnamed sources. "According to one person, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers in a private briefing on Monday that he believes the US can force Venezuela's hand because its existing oil tankers are full. Rubio also told lawmakers that the US estimates that Caracas has only a couple of weeks before it will become financially insolvent without the sale of its oil reserves."
"Congress will not bankroll illegal, unnecessary military action in Greenland just to soothe the ego of a power-hungry wannabe dictator."
As leaders in Europe respond to once-unimaginable threats by the United States to take territory from a NATO ally, one US senator on Monday proposed legislation banning funding for any Trump administration military action against Greenland.
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) put forth an amendment to the Senate Defense Appropriations bill "to prohibit the use of funds for military force, the conduct of hostilities, or the preparation for war against or with respect to Greenland," a self-governing territory of Denmark.
“Families are getting crushed by rising grocery and housing costs, inflation is up, and [President Donald] Trump’s name is all over the Epstein files," Gallego said in a statement. "Instead of doing anything to fix those problems, Trump is trying to distract people by threatening to start wars and invade countries—first in Venezuela, and now against our NATO ally Denmark."
“What’s happening in Venezuela shows us that we can’t just ignore Trump’s reckless threats," Gallego added. "His dangerous behavior puts American lives and our global credibility at risk. I’m introducing this amendment to make it clear that Congress will not bankroll illegal, unnecessary military action, and to force Republicans to choose whether they’re going to finally stand up or keep enabling Trump’s chaos.”
"This is not more complicated than the fact that Trump wants a giant island with his name on it. He wouldn’t think twice about putting our troops in danger if it makes him feel big and strong. The US military is not a toy," Gallego—a former Marine Corps infantryman—said on social media.
The illegal US invasion and bombing of Venezuela and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife—which came amid a high-seas airstrike campaign against alleged drug traffickers—spooked many Greenlanders, Danes, and Europeans, who say they have no choice but to take Trump's threats seriously.
“Threats, pressure, and talk of annexation have no place between friends,” Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said Monday on social media. “That is not how you speak to a people who have shown responsibility, stability, and loyalty time and again. Enough is enough. No more pressure. No more innuendo. No more fantasies about annexation.”
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned during a Monday television interview that "if the United States decides to militarily attack another NATO country, then everything would stop—that includes NATO, and therefore the post-Second World War security."
Other European leaders have also rallied behind Greenland amid the mounting US threat.
"Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland," the leaders of Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain asserted in a statement also backed by the Netherlands and Canada—which Trump has said he wants to make the "51st state."
The White House said Tuesday that Trump and members of his national security team are weighing a “range of options” to acquire Greenland, and that military action is “always an option” for seizing the mineral-rich and strategic island.
This, after White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller brushed off criticism of a social media post by his wife, who posted an image showing a map of Greenland covered in the American flag with the caption, "SOON."
"You can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else," Miller told CNN on Monday. "But we live in a world, in the real world, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power."
No war powers resolution has ever succeeded in stopping a US president from proceeding with military action, including one introduced last month by Gallego in a bid to stop the boat strikes in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has also unsuccessfully tried to get war powers resolutions passed, implied Tuesday that more measures aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Greenland may be forthcoming.
“He has repeatedly raised Greenland, Cuba, Mexico, Colombia. He’s waged military action within Nigeria,” Kaine said of Trump, who has bombed more countries than any president in history. “So I think members of the Senate should go on the record about all of it.”
In Greenland, only a handful of the island's 57,000 inhabitants want to join the United States. More than 8 in 10 favor independence amid often strained relations with their masters in Copenhagen and the legacy of a colonial history rife with abuses. Greenlanders enjoy a Nordic-style social welfare system that features universal healthcare; free higher education; and income, family, and employment benefits and protections unimaginable in today's United States.
Pro-independence figures say like-minded people must use the specter of a US takeover to wring concessions from Denmark.
"I am more nervous that we are potentially in a situation where only Denmark's wishes are taken into account and that we have not even been clarified about what we want," Aki-Matilda Tilia Ditte Høegh-Dam, a member of the pro-independence Naleraq party in Greenland's Inatsisartut, or Parliament, told Sermitsiaq on Tuesday.
"I'm in the Folketinget [Danish Parliament] right now, and I see that the Danish government is constantly making agreements with the United States," she added. "It’s not that they ask Greenland first."
US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was among observers who noted Tuesday that any US invasion of Greenland would oblige other NATO members to defend the island under the North Atlantic Treaty's collective defense requirement.
“That’s what Article 5 says. Article 5 did not anticipate that the invading country would be a member of NATO,” Murphy told reporters on Capitol Hill. “We’re laughing, but this is not actually something to laugh about now because I think he’s increasingly serious.”
"The illegal attack on Venezuela is not foreign policy; it’s gangsterism on an international scale," said the Democratic Mainer running for Senate.
Since the Trump administration invaded Venezuela to abduct President Nicolás Maduro over the weekend, Graham Platner, a military veteran and Democratic US Senate candidate from Maine, has been calling out not only the attack, but also the Republican lawmakers who enabled it—particularly Sen. Susan Collins, whom he hopes to beat next November.
After the attack, Collins said that while "Congress should have been informed about the operation earlier and needs to be involved as this situation evolves," she was "personally briefed" by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Maduro is "a narco-terrorist and international drug trafficker... who should stand trial" in the United States.
Platner, who became an oyster farmer and harbormaster after his four infantry tours in the US Army and Marine Corps, responded to Collins on social media, "As someone who works with many invertebrates, I know a spineless response when I see one..."
The progressive candidate also joined protesters in Portland on Saturday, addressing the crowd at Longfellow Square.
"This is not foreign policy. This is gangsterism on an international scale," Platner said to cheers. "We must not be fooled by the childish lies being used to justify this illegal aggression. Be wary of the establishment voices in media and in politics who, over the next few weeks, will work tirelessly to manufacture consent, even when they sound like they are opposed."
"Keep an ear out for 'this operation is bad, but' followed by words about democracy, dictatorship, and international law," he warned. "If those were justifications for invasion and abduction, we'd have invaded many of our allies a long time ago."
"Those voices are doing the work of empire, and we must be vigilant for their duplicitousness," he continued. "If they are media figures, change the channel. If they are political figures, work tirelessly to remove them from power."
President Donald Trump—who was elected with the backing of fossil fuel billionaires—addressed the nation after the attack on Saturday and again made clear that he has set his sights on Venezuelan oil.
In response to Trump, Platner called "bullshit," adding, "I watched my friends die in Iraq in the wake of speeches like this one." He also posted photos from the Portland protest and declared, "No blood for oil."
Platner also put out a video blasting the failure of federal lawmakers to pass a war powers resolution requiring congressional authorization for military action against the South American country.
In recent months, both GOP-controlled chambers of Congress have failed to pass resolutions that would have blocked Trump's strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats and war with Venezuela. In both Senate votes, Collins has voted no.
Platner highlighted the Republican senator's November vote against the Venezuela measure, which failed 49-51, and said that "from Iraq to Venezuela, you can count on Susan Collins to enable illegal foreign wars."
Meanwhile, Collins has affirmed her support for the US operation in Venezuela, saying in a Monday interview with News Center Maine that Maduro "should stand trial on American soil."
During Maduro's first court appearance in New York City on Monday, he said that "I am the president of Venezuela, and I consider myself a prisoner of war," and pleaded not guilty—as did his wife, Cilia Flores, who was also captured in Caracas.
Amid mounting global outrage and arguments that their abduction violated the US Constitution and international law, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has pledged to force another vote on a bipartisan war powers resolution this week.
Maine's other US senator, Angus King, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, has voted for both previous war powers resolutions. After Trump abducted Maduro, King said that "I'm very concerned about where this leads."
"The Constitution lays out very clearly that Congress has the power to declare war," King added. "I know Congress has abdicated many of its powers in recent years, but I hope and plan on trying to return those fundamental duties back to the legislative branch as the founders designed."
Under reported pressure from Schumer, Maine Gov. Janet Mills is facing Platner in the Democratic primary contest for the Senate race. Although she has been friendlier to Collins than her progressive opponent, Mills has also called out the Republican senator over the Venezuela attack, saying that she "gave Donald Trump the green light to move us unilaterally towards a costly and unjustified war when she voted with her party against a bill to check his power."
"We have had enough of Sen. Collins feigning concern about the president's abuses on the one hand while she rubber-stamps his agenda and his actions on the other," Mills said. "I call on Susan Collins to use the power she claims to have as Maine's senior senator to demand accountability from the Trump administration and stand up to his dangerous and self-motivated power grab."
Polling published last month showed mixed results in the primary race, in the wake of Platner facing criticism for past social media posts and a tattoo he had covered up. His campaign told Axios on Monday that the candidate raised $4.7 million from more than 182,000 contributions in the final quarter of 2025, with an average donation of $25 per person.
"While the political elites in both parties have tried to write this movement off as a flash in the pan, we have shown time and time again that we not only have staying power but are building a ship that will last," Platner said in a statement.