April, 29 2022, 11:06am EDT

For Immediate Release
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
Warren to Trump Treasury Chief: Did You Give Wall Street Execs Insider Info on Trade Talks?
"You owe Congress and the public an explanation for why you and other White House officials appear to be providing Wall Street insiders secret information on the tariffs," wrote Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Apr 28, 2025
Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is pressing Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent for answers following reports that officials inside President Donald Trump's White House have been providing Wall Street executives with advance notice about potentially market-moving trade talks with other nations, including China and India.
In a letter to Bessent dated April 25, Warren points to a Bloombergstory noting that Bessent "told a closed-door investor summit" that the "tariff standoff with China cannot be sustained by both sides and that the world's two largest economies will have to find ways to de-escalate."
The summit, which took place last Tuesday, was hosted by the Wall Street behemoth JPMorgan Chase in Washington, D.C. Bloomberg observed that the S&P 500 rose nearly 3% after Bessent's comments were leaked.
CNN additionally reported that Bessent's private assessment of the U.S.-China standoff "gave a boost to a Wall Street rally that had taken shape earlier on Tuesday, with all three major U.S. stock indexes hitting their highest levels of the day after Bessent's remarks were made public."
"Chaos, confusion, economic damage, and opportunities for corruption have become the hallmark of President Trump's rollout of his tariff policies."
Warren wrote in her letter that the JPMorgan event "was not open to the public or media" and expressed concern that Bessent "provided a room full of wealthy investors and Wall Street executives exclusive, advance tips about the administration's trade policy, potentially creating the opportunity for insider trading or other financial profiteering by well-connected friends of the administration."
"Chaos, confusion, economic damage, and opportunities for corruption have become the hallmark of President Trump's rollout of his tariff policies," Warren continued. "President Trump's opaque decision-making on tariffs and frequent, seemingly random changes of course have created a scenario where wealthy investors and well-connected corporations can get special treatment, receiving inside information they can use to time the market, or obtaining tariff exemptions that are worth billions of dollars—while Main Street, small businesses, and America's families are left to clean up the damage."
"You owe Congress and the public an explanation for why you and other White House officials appear to be providing Wall Street insiders secret information on the tariffs, while withholding that information from the public," the senator added, demanding that Bessent answer a series of questions—including who attended the event and how much time passed between his private remarks and press reports on the event.
Warren sent the letter a day after Fox Business correspondent Charles Gasparino reported that unnamed officials inside the Trump White House have been "alerting Wall Street execs they are nearing an agreement in principle on trade with India," heightening concerns that the administration is effectively encouraging insider trading.
Trump told reporters Friday that he "can't imagine" anyone in his administration tipping off Wall Street executives about nonpublic trade developments.
"I have very honorable people, that I can say," the president said. "So I can't even imagine it."
On Monday, a group of congressional Democrats warned the White House of "potential violations of federal ethics and insider trading laws by individuals close to the president with access to nonpublic information."
The Democratic lawmakers pointed specifically to a spike in the volume of call options—essentially bets that a stock price will rise—shortly before Trump announced a partial tariff pause earlier this month.
"We therefore urgently request a full accounting of the periodic transaction reports for all senior White House and executive branch employees since the start of the administration, and we ask for your commitment to transmit all reports to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) to be made public, as was done during the first Trump administration," the lawmakers wrote Monday. "By failing to take these steps, the administration would be withholding critical information from the American people regarding potential violations of federal ethics and insider trading laws."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The American People Do Not Want Oligarchy': Poll Shows Trump's Approval at Historic Low at 100-Day Mark
A whopping 72% of respondents said that they believe it is "likely" that Trump's policies will cause an economic recession in the short term.
Apr 28, 2025
As U.S. President Donald Trump nears the 100-day mark of his second term, a recent ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll shows that his approval rating now sits at a historic low of 39%, a nadir that prompted one prominent progressive to remark that the negative public sentiment comes as "the resistance is just beginning."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has mounted a highly successful "Fighting Oligarchy" tour across America in recent months, highlighted the findings of the poll on Sunday and wrote: "The American people do not want oligarchy, authoritarianism, or attacks on Social Security, Medicaid, or the VA," speaking of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
The poll, which conducted a random national sample of 2,464 adults in English and Spanish between April 18-22, found discontent among voters when it comes to Trump's handling of multiple policies issues, particularly on the economy.
A whopping 72% of respondents said that they believe it is "likely" that Trump's policies—such as sweeping tariffs—will cause an economic recession in the short term.
What's more, 53% say the economy is worse since Trump took office and 62% said that the prices for things they rely on have gone up.
Trump's overall approval on immigration policy, one of his core campaign issues, is also less than 50%. When it comes to his handling of immigration—an area where Trump has moved to roll back birthright citizenship, deported U.S. citizens, and invoked a rarely used wartime authority to deport Venezuelan nationals to a megaprison in El Salvador, among other measures—his approval rating sits at 46%, according to the ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.
Additionally, over 55% of Americans say Trump is "going too far" when it comes to seeking to expand the power of the presidency, closing federal agencies, laying off federal employees to reduce the size of government, and taking measures agains this political foes.
Overall, his approval among Americans has dipped from 45% positive in February to 39% positive on the eve of the 100-day mark, which is on Tuesday.
According to The Washington Post's analysis of the poll results, Trump's approval at 100 days in both of his terms is lower than any other president's at or near the 100-day mark "since polls began." Polling data on this question stretches back to former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's (FDR) third term, per the Post, when his approval rating was at 68% at the 100-day point. ABC News' write up of the poll results says that "Trump has the lowest 100-day job approval rating of any president in the past 80 years."
Some have drawn parallels between Trump and FDR, whose first 15 weeks in office in 1933 were dominated by a push to work with Congress on economic recovery and relief for working people, the first phase of what's known as the "New Deal." However, historians have noted that in substance the two could not be more different.
In reporting piece published Monday, the Post noted that Roosevelt's push in the first 100 days led to major new laws, while Trump largely relies on executive order.
"Roosevelt spent an awful lot of time trying to craft constitutional justifications in legislation, and draft it in such a way that the courts might accept it," Anthony Badger, a historian and author of FDR: The First Hundred Days, told the Post. "He wasn't trying to do it by executive order."
The historian and author Eric Rauchway toldCNN recently that substantively Trump's policies are the "opposite of the New Deal."
Trump "seems to be taking apart regulatory mechanisms. He seems to be drawing down public investment in a variety of areas, including the arts and so forth. He seems to be, as far as I can tell, diminishing resources sent to the Social Security Administration, which of course is the central piece of the New Deal’s proto-welfare state," Racuhway told the outlet.
In a similar vein to Sanders, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote Monday that Trump's actions in his first 100 days serves as a call to mobilization and to "loudly and boldly sound the alarm."
"The U.S. Constitution is in peril. Civil and human rights are being trampled upon. The economy is in disarray," wrote Reich. "At this rate, we won't make it through the second hundred days."
Reich suggested that that answer is for Americans to speak out and urge lawmakers in Congress, both chambers of which are currently GOP-controlled, to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump.
"Americans must be mobilized into such a huge wave of anger and disgust that members of the House are compelled to impeach Trump (for the third time) and enough senators are moved to finally convict him," he concluded.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Majority of US Voters Support Third Trump Impeachment: Poll
"It's up to Congress to do their job, defend the Constitution, and impeach and remove Donald Trump from office for his grave abuses of power," said Free Speech for People's campaign director.
Apr 28, 2025
New polling shows a majority of U.S. voters support Congress impeaching U.S. President Donald Trump a third time, which would break a record the Republican set during his first term, when he was twice impeached by the House of Representatives but never convicted by the Senate.
Specifically, a polling memo published Friday by ASO Communications and Research Collaborative shows that just a few months into Trump's return to the White House, 52% of likely voters across the ideological spectrum somewhat or strongly support impeaching him—including 84% of Democrats, 55% of Independents, and even 20% of his fellow Republicans.
The survey was conducted from April 18-21 by Data for Progress. The polling firm also asked the 1,171 respondents, "Thinking of an impeachment effort led by Democrats in Congress, which of the following comes closest to your view, even if none are exactly right?"
The largest share of respondents (46%)—including 80% of Democrats, 52% of Independents, and 9% of Republicans—said that "Democrats in Congress should attempt to impeach Trump because they have a duty to remove a president that has violated Americans' constitutional rights and the law."
Another 38% said Democrats should not impeach Trump because he hasn't done anything worthy of that, while 17% said they should avoid impeachment "because it is a performative action that will likely fail and make the Democratic Party look weak."
The Friday memo notes that "support for impeachment is now on par with the levels seen during the two most recent impeachment proceedings—even before a full public case has been presented. This moment offers an opportunity to build that case for the American public and demonstrate that elected leaders are committed to upholding their oaths and are willing to act boldly to protect our freedoms, our families, and our futures."
In response to the polling, Free Speech for People campaign director Alexandra Flores-Quilty declared that "Americans across the country refuse to let Trump and his allies destroy our democracy."
Free Speech for People is leading a nonpartisan Impeach Trump Again campaign, which includes a petition that has now been signed by over 370,000 people nationwide. The group's constitutional lawyers have documented abuses of power by Trump and his billionaire allies since Inauguration Day, from illegal actions targeting immigrants and seeking retribution against perceived adversaries to attacking voting rights and having criminal charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams dismissed.
According to Flores-Quilty, "It's up to Congress to do their job, defend the Constitution, and impeach and remove Donald Trump from office for his grave abuses of power."
Although the GOP now narrowly holds both chambers of Congress, articles of impeachment against the president could still be coming soon from Rep. Al Green (D-Texas).
The Hillreported that Green said during an early April anti-Trump rally: "We need a Senate that will convict him this time, and I want you to know, from my heart, from my heart, I understand that he is a Goliath. He is a Goliath. He has control of the generals in the military. He has control of the Justice Department. He has control of the Republican Party, but my friends, my friends, for every Goliath, there is a David."
"And I want you to know, Mr. President, this David is going to bring articles of impeachment against you within the next 30 days," he told the crowd in Washington, D.C. "Within the next 30 days, I'm bringing articles of impeachment. I'm coming for you. Mr. President, this David is coming for you."
New NYT/Siena Poll: —Trump's approval rating is 42% vs. 54% disapprove —59% of voters think Trump's 2nd term in office is "scary" —54% say Trump is "exceeding the powers available to him" —Trump has negative approval in all policy areas www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/u...
[image or embed]
— Yonah Freemark (@yonahfreemark.com) April 25, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Other recent surveys have also found that voters are alarmed by or unhappy with the president. For example, a New York Times/Siena College poll conducted from April 21-24 shows that 66% of voters describe his second term as "chaotic," 59% think it's "scary," 54% disapprove of how Trump is handling his job, and 53% believe that the United States is "headed in the wrong direction."
An ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted April 18-22 similarly found that 55% of Americans disapprove of the president's job performance. A majority of voters also said that Trump is "going too far" in trying to expand the power of the presidency, closing federal agencies, laying off government employees, taking measures against political opponents, and trying to end efforts to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in workplaces.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular