SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
April, 29 2022, 11:06am EDT
Legal Challenges Filed to Block Two Extreme Oklahoma Abortion Bans
A Texas-style copycat ban – passed today and would take effect as soon as the governor signs it.
WASHINGTON
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) 637-3600LATEST NEWS
'The Whole Country's Going to Get Blown Up': Trump Renews Genocidal Threats to Iran as Ceasefire Collapses
"Whether he means it or not, his saying it is an indelible moral stain on our country," said one law professor.
Apr 19, 2026
President Donald Trump on Sunday renewed his threat to carry out a genocidal attack on Iran, pledging to "blow up" the "whole country" of over 90 million people and to demolish critical civilian infrastructure if it does not sign a peace deal by Wednesday.
"If they don't sign the deal, then the whole country is going to get blown up," Trump said, according to Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst, who relayed the comments on air Sunday morning.
Trump also reportedly said that the US was "preparing to hit [Iran] harder than any country has ever been hit before because you cannot let them have a nuclear weapon."
The comments came after Iran once again closed the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday in response to the continued US blockade of Iranian ports, which Iranian officials said violated the terms of the agreement reached between the two countries.
After renewing the blockade, Iranian gunboats fired upon a pair of Indian-flagged ships attempting to travel through the strait Saturday.
In response, Trump issued a furious post on Truth Social Sunday morning, saying that he would send a team of negotiators—Vice President JD Vance, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff—to Islamabad on Monday for another round of negotiations.
"We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran," Trump wrote. "NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!"
"They’ll come down fast, they’ll come down easy and, if they don’t take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years," he continued.
It echoed the similarly genocidal threat made by Trump earlier in April that "a whole civilization will die... never to be brought back again,” if Iran did not agree to a deal, which drew worldwide condemnation and sparked efforts by some members of Congress to pursue impeachment or push for Trump's cabinet to remove him via the 25th Amendment.
Trump has appeared eager to end the war with Iran after it caused economic upheaval and pushed his already dire approval rating even lower. But he has also backed Israel when it sought to undermine key points of the agreement, prompting retaliation from Iran.
The ceasefire announced earlier this month between the US and Iran initially included a halt to the hostilities between Israel and Lebanon. But within hours, Israel unleashed its most punishing set of attacks against Lebanon since the war began in March. Trump then backed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he claimed that Lebanon was never part of the deal.
Iran only agreed to open the Strait of Hormuz on Friday after Israel and Lebanon appeared to agree to a 10-day ceasefire. But Israel has already violated that agreement several times, continuing to raze Lebanese villages and fire upon people approaching its newly imposed "yellow line."
In addition to calling for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before he launched the war in late February, Trump has demanded that Iran make a deal to hand over all of its enriched uranium, which he refers to as "nuclear dust."
A spokesperson for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has said such a proposal would violate Iran's sovereignty: "Iran's uranium is Iran's asset. It is our responsibility, our energy, our sovereign right."
An end to the attacks against Lebanon has been described as another central demand from Iran, although officials said the decision to close the strait again on Saturday was in response to Trump's continued blockade of Iranian ports.
International law strictly prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure with no military objective, including bridges and power plants that are critical to human life.
Trump’s previous threats to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages" suggest that the latest threats are less about accomplishing a specific military objective than about inflicting suffering on Iranian society as leverage.
Last time Trump made such a threat, a coalition of more than 200 groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Refugees International, and Oxfam America, wrote in an urgent letter stating that if carried out, such attacks would constitute "a grave atrocity" and that "a threat to wipe out ‘a whole civilization’ may amount to a threat of genocide."
Human Rights Watch said that, if acted upon, "the statement could be indicative of criminal intent if Trump were ever prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.
The last time Trump threatened to unleash an apocalyptic attack on Iran, the threat preceded a deal that, at least in principle, involved the US agreeing to negotiate based on a set of terms laid out by the Iranians. This led many observers to characterize the threats as bluster meant to save face before capitulation rather than a sincere pledge to annihilate Iran.
However, Adil Haque, a law professor at Rutgers and the executive editor at Just Security, said that, "Whether he means it or not, his saying it is an indelible moral stain on our country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Louisiana Advances One of the Country’s ‘Cruelest’ Anti-Homeless Bills
One homeless advocacy group said the bill, which would require homeless people to perform unpaid labor to pay for involuntary treatment, "evokes debtor’s prisons, convict leasing, and the ugliest day of Jim Crow."
Apr 18, 2026
The Louisiana House of Representatives voted this week to pass what the National Homelessness Law Center says is "one of the cruelest anti-homeless bills in the country."
Like many other anti-homeless bills being advanced around the country following a 2024 Supreme Court decision allowing states and cities to criminalize homelessness, House Bill 211, which passed by a vote of 70-28, makes unauthorized sleeping in public spaces a crime.
It is punishable by a fine of up to $500, imprisonment for up to six months, or both. Repeat offenders could face one to two years in prison with hard labor and a $1,000 fine.
The bill, which will now advance to the GOP-controlled state Senate, has been nicknamed the "Streets to Success Act" because, according to its sponsor, state Rep. Debbie Villio (R-79), the goal is not to jail homeless people but to "connect them to service providers."
Those who are convicted of sleeping outdoors could be given the option to avoid jail time by instead entering into a mandatory treatment program for at least 12 months. The bill authorizes local governments to set up semi-permanent camps in remote areas, where defendants would be required to stay and receive treatment.
The bill requires homeless defendants to pay “all or part of the cost of the treatment program to which he is assigned," a steep cost for many, as the average cost for residential drug and alcohol rehab treatment in Louisiana is more than $4,400 per week, according to the addiction referral service directory Addicted.org.
According to the bill, those who cannot afford this steep cost would be required to perform unpaid labor for the state or a local community center in lieu of payment.
Bill Quigley, director of the Gillis Long Poverty Law Center at Loyola University New Orleans, called the bill's entire premise "a farce."
"If people had the resources to pay for housing and physical and/or mental health services, they would not be on the street," he told Common Dreams.
He described it as a "cruel theater of the absurd" based on "the lie that people choose to be homeless." The law, he said, "assumes our communities have plenty of affordable apartments and lots of mental and physical health services available."
In reality, he said, these services are chronically underfunded, and the city would need to build about 55,000 more affordable rental units to provide enough housing for its rent-burdened population.
Though it is not uncommon for homeless people to struggle with mental health or substance use issues, increases in the cost of housing have been shown to have a direct relationship with increasing homelessness.
Homelessness in New Orleans dropped considerably in the years following the Covid-19 pandemic, when Congress provided permanent housing subsidies for those in need. But after those funds have dried up, homelessness in the city shot up higher than before the pandemic, a study by the homelessness nonprofit UNITY of Greater New Orleans found in 2024.
New Orleans City Councilmember Lesli Harris (D), who has opposed the bill, pointed to the success of the city's Home for Good program, which took a "Housing First" approach to homelessness, providing rental subsidies and allowing people to move straight from encampments into housing without requirements that they obtain treatment.
According to a May 2025 report, the program had moved 1,133 people off the streets and into supportive housing and allowed eight homeless encampments to close.
"Through our Home for Good program, we house an individual for roughly $21,844 per year. By comparison, jailing that same person costs an average of $51,000—and failing to act at all can cost up to $55,000 in emergency room visits and crisis rehousing," Harris said. "HB 211 would steer Louisiana toward the most expensive option while producing no lasting housing, no services, and no real path forward for the people involved."
Harris has also decried the bill's creation of what she called "internment camps" for treatment. The bill's text requires these facilities to be far away from downtown and other high-value neighborhoods, which she said separates those trying to rebuild their lives from work, public transit, and other critical services, and further isolates them from society.
Since the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson, which allowed cities to enforce public-camping bans against unhoused people even when shelter is unavailable, around two dozen states and hundreds of municipalities have passed various measures criminalizing poverty.
The homeless advocacy group Housing Not Handcuffs points out that many of the bills were written by the Cicero Institute, a far-right think tank with heavy backing from billionaire tech investors that now has deep influence over the housing policy of President Donald Trump, who has taken a hacksaw to funding for public housing programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Housing Not Handcuffs said Louisiana's bill, which would almost certainly be signed by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry if passed by the state Senate, "is an extreme take on the already extreme copy-paste legislation" peddled by Cicero.
"This bill forces homeless people charged with a crime to make the false choice between jail or at least one year of forced treatment," the group said. "Louisiana has a long history—and present—of chain gangs, prison labor, and entrenched white supremacy. This bill clearly evokes debtor’s prisons, convict leasing, and the ugliest day of Jim Crow."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israel Continues 'Gaza Tactics' in Lebanon, Leveling Villages and Homes in Violation of Ceasefire
UN experts have said Israel's "destruction of urban and village housing that displaced persons would have returned to, is consistent with the pattern of domicide that was initiated during the genocide in Gaza."
Apr 18, 2026
Despite a ceasefire announced Friday, after US President Donald Trump said Israel was "PROHIBITED" from continuing to strike Lebanon, Israel continued to level villages and homes across southern Lebanon from Friday into Saturday in what has been described as a continuation of its "Gaza tactics."
Just as it did in Gaza, Israeli Army Radio announced Friday night that Israel had established a "yellow line" in southern Lebanon about 10 kilometers north of the Israeli border, effectively allowing Israel to occupy about 10% of Lebanese territory and maintain control of 55 towns and villages.
According to a report by Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research, Israeli forces have been destroying more than 1,000 homes per day since March 2, sometimes wiping out entire villages across southern Lebanon.
The campaign escalated later in the month after Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz ordered the military to "accelerate the destruction of Lebanese homes" near the Israeli border based on the "model in Gaza," where Israel has destroyed around 90% of all infrastructure and left most of the population sheltering in tents.
Israel has described this as an effort to destroy Hezbollah infrastructure. But the razing of entire villages has often appeared indiscriminate, and numerous attacks have targeted or damaged schools, hospitals, and other nonmilitary infrastructure. More than 40,000 homes have reportedly been destroyed or damaged.
Demolitions and land-clearing operations have continued after Friday's ceasefire, according to reporters on the ground in Lebanon for Al Jazeera. Israeli artillery also reportedly shelled areas around Beit Lif, al-Qantara, and Toul.
On Friday, Israel warned tens of thousands of displaced Lebanese civilians in southern Lebanon not to return to their homes despite the ceasefire, although some have begun to make the trek anyway. Many have found their former homes reduced to rubble.
“There’s destruction, and it’s unlivable," said one resident who was displaced from his home in Nabatieh. "We’re taking our things and leaving again."
Israel said Saturday that it had also carried out new airstrikes in southern Lebanon against people who approached the newly established yellow line. The Israeli military claimed that individuals crossed from north of the line toward Israeli troops, prompting "precise strikes" by air and ground forces against them.
An Israeli military statement described those approaching as "terrorists" who violated the ceasefire and said it carried out the strikes in "self-defense against threats." However, it did not specify what threat those approaching the line posed.
Previous attacks that Israel has said were directed at Hezbollah fighters have devastated civilian areas in southern Lebanon, as well as Beirut and its surrounding suburbs.
According to Lebanon’s Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between military and civilian casualties, more than 2,167 people have been killed since Israel renewed its attacks in Lebanon on March 2.
In Gaza, despite a ceasefire, nearly 100 Palestinians have been killed near the yellow line since it was established in October 2025. Those killed have included at least 36 women, children, and elderly people, according to TRT World.
On Wednesday, a group of United Nations experts denounced what they called Israel's "illegal aggression and indiscriminate bombing campaign" aimed at occupying land in violation of the UN Charter.
“The issuance of blanket evacuation orders, combined with the destruction of urban and village housing that displaced persons would have returned to, is consistent with the pattern of domicide that was initiated during the genocide in Gaza,” they warned.
On Saturday, a group of peacekeepers with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon also came under attack, resulting in the death of a French soldier. Lebanon's Foreign Ministry condemned the attack and pledged to identify the "perpetrators."
UN peacekeepers and French officials have said the attack was most likely carried out by Hezbollah, but Hezbollah has denied responsibility.
Israel's continued attacks on Lebanon also threaten to derail not only its ceasefire with Lebanon but also the US ceasefire with Iran.
After the announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon on Friday, Iran briefly reopened the Strait of Hormuz to unrestricted travel. But on Saturday, following reports of Israel's violations of the ceasefire, it was once again closed.
While Iranian officials said the proximate reason for the closure was the continuation of US President Donald Trump's blockade of the strait, they have also indicated that they want Israel to stop attacking Lebanon as part of the ceasefire.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular