

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) 637-3600"I feel very confident that he can do a very good job," Trump said of Mamdani after their White House meeting. "I think he is going to surprise some conservative people, actually.”
While Gothamist's characterization of Friday's White House meeting between President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani as "a surprising bromance" was likely an overstretch, the far-right US leader did offer copious praise for the democratic socialist during their amiable encounter.
Asked by a reporter if he would feel comfortable living in New York City under Mamdani, Trump—with Mamdani standing beside him in the Oval Office—replied: “Yeah, I would. I really would. Especially after the meeting."
“We agree on a lot more than I thought," the president continued. "I want him to do a great job, and we’ll help him do a great job.”
Asked by another reporter if he was standing next to a “jihadist"—as Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) called Mamdani over his support for Palestinian liberation and opposition to Israel's genocide in Gaza—Trump said, “No... I met with a man who is a very rational person."
"I met with a man who really wants to see New York be great again," the president added. "I think you’re going to have, hopefully, a really great mayor. The better he does, the happier I am. And we’re going to be helping him to make everybody’s dream come true. Having a strong and very safe New York.”
Comparing Mamdani to another prominent democratic socialist, who represents Vermont in the US Senate, Trump added that "Bernie Sanders and I agreed on much more than people thought."
The pair reportedly discussed contentious issues including Trump's anti-immigrant crackdown and federal invasion of several US cities including Los Angeles; Washington, DC; Portland, Maine; Chicago; and Memphis.
However, they also discussed common-ground issues including the affordability crisis, which has hit New Yorkers particularly hard.
"It was a productive meeting focused on a place of shared admiration and love, which is New York City and the need to deliver affordability to New Yorkers," Mamdani told reporters.
Friday's friendly meeting was a stark departure from previous acrimonious exchanges between Trump and Mamdani. The president has called Mamdani a "communist lunatic” and a “total nut job," and repeatedly threatened to cut off federal funding to the nation's largest city if the leftist was elected. Trump also threatened to arrest Mamdani after the then-mayoral candidate said he would refuse to cooperate with his administration's mass deportation campaign.
Asked Friday about calling Mamdani a communist, Trump said: “He’s got views that are a little out there, but who knows. I mean, we’re going to see what works. He’s going to change, also. I changed a lot."
"I feel very confident that he can do a very good job," the president added. "I think he is going to surprise some conservative people, actually.”
For his part, Mamdani has called Trump a "despot" and the embodiment of New York City's problems, decried his "authoritarian" administration, and called himself the president's "worst nightmare." He also called Trump a "fascist" on numerous occasions.
"I've been called much worse than a despot,” Trump quipped Friday.
After their meeting, a reporter asked Mamdani if he still thought Trump is a fascist. The president interrupted as Mamdani began to respond, patting him on the arm and saying, “That’s OK, you can just say yes."
Mamdani did not compliment Trump nearly as much as the president—who posted several photos in which he posed with the mayor-elect before a portrait of President Franklin D. Roosevelt—lavished praise upon him.
Let’s be clear. @zohrankmamdani.bsky.social got Trump so charmed that Trump posted two photos of the two of them with Franklin Roosevelt’s portrait behind them AND one of just Mamdani and FDR’s portrait.
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) November 21, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Mamdani called the meeting "cordial and productive," and said that he looked forward to working with Trump to "improve life in New York," highlighting their agreement on issues like housing affordability, food and energy costs, and reducing the cost of living—issues which he said motivated voters to support both men.
Observers expressed surprise over the affable meeting, with Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)—one of Trump's staunchest congressional critics—asking on social media, "What the heck just happened?"
The meeting proceeded far differently than previewed by Fox News:
Numerous far-right figures were furious at Trump's genial reception of a man they've spent much of the year demonizing. Leftists mocked their angst, with the popular X account @_iamblakeley asking, "Has anyone checked in on Laura Loomer?"
The rabidly Islamophobic conspiracy theorist and staunch Trump loyalist was, in fact, having a social media meltdown.
Referring to the Republican congresswoman from Georgia who made a surprise retirement announcement on Friday, journalist Aaron Rupar wrote on Bluesky that "Trump feuding with Marjorie Taylor Greene but being in love with Zohran Mamdani was not on my November 2025 bingo card."
Some social media users noted that Trump offered Mamdani a more ringing endorsement than even some prominent Democrats.
"Trump is being nicer to Mamdani than Democratic leadership," journalist Ken Klippenstein wrote on Bluesky.
Another Bluesky account posted, "Donald Trump endorsed Zohran Mamdani before Chuck Schumer," a reference to the Senate majority leader—who never endorsed his party's nominee to lead the city they both call home.
Corporate Democrats' disdain for leftist candidates and ideology was on full display Thursday as the House of Representatives voted 285-98 in favor of a resolution "denouncing the horrors of socialism" in "all its forms," presumably including the variety that has been a dominant political force across Western democracies since shortly after World War II.
Eighty-six Democrats joined their Republican colleagues in voting for the resolution. The vote took place as Mamdani was en route to the White House.
Rep. Eugene Vindman—who was a White House national security lawyer at the time of the 2019 call—said it “would shock people if they knew what was said.”
The widow of Jamal Khashoggi on Friday joined Democratic members of Congress in urging President Donald Trump to release the transcript of a phone conversation between the US leader and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman following the journalist's 2018 kidnapping and gruesome murder by Saudi operatives.
Speaking outside the US Capitol in Washington, DC flanked by Democratic members of Congress including Reps. Eugene Vindman of Virginia and Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Hanan Elatr Khashoggi said she is seeking the lawmakers' help "to get the contents of the conversation between President Trump and MBS to get the truth."
“Try as much as you can to save the democratic freedom of America," Khashoggi implored the audience at the gathering. "Do not be a copy of the Middle East dictator countries. We look to America as our role model of modern civilization. Please maintain it.”
Jamal Khashoggi's widow, Hanan Elatr Khashoggi: "I'm seeking the help of Congressmen Vindman and Jamie Raskin, to get the transcript of the conversation between President Trump and Crown Prince MBS to understand the truth."
[image or embed]
— The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) November 21, 2025 at 8:44 AM
Vindman urged the declassification and release of what he called a "highly disturbing" 2019 call between Trump and MBS—who US intelligence agencies say ordered Khashoggi's murder—the contents of which the congressman claimed “would shock people if they knew what was said.”
At the time of the call, Vindman was serving as a lawyer on Trump's National Security Council, where his duties included reviewing presidential communications with foreign leaders.
"All week, I’ve urged the president to release this transcript," Vindman said during his remarks at Friday's press conference. "Yesterday, I sent him a letter with 37 of my colleagues demanding its release. We will continue pressing until the American people get the truth.”
"Given President Trump’s disturbing and counterfactual defense of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman this week, I felt compelled to speak up on behalf of the Khashoggi family and the country I serve," he added.
On Tuesday, Trump warmly welcomed the crown prince to the White House, calling him a "respected man," designating Saudi Arabia a major non-NATO ally, and announcing the planned sale of F-35 fighter jets to the kingdom.
Trump also threatened an ABC News reporter who attempted to ask MBS about his role in Khashoggi's murder, calling the victim "somebody that was extremely controversial" and whom "a lot of people didn’t like."
“Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen," Trump said as MBS smugly looked on, dubiously adding that the crown prince "knew nothing about it."
Responding to Trump's comments, Khashoggi's widow said during Friday's press conference that “there is no justification to kidnap [Khashoggi], torture him, to kill him, and to cut him to pieces."
"This is a terrorist act," she added.
Khashoggi—a Washington Post columnist and permanent US resident—vanished in October 2018 while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Turkish officials said he was attacked, suffocated to death, and dismembered with a bone saw inside the consular compound. One Turkish investigator said Khashoggi was tortured in front the Saudi consul-general and dismembered while he was still alive.
Saudi officials initially denied that Khashoggi died in the consulate but later confirmed his death, claiming it resulted from a “fistfight” gone wrong. In 2019, a Saudi court sentenced five people to death and three others to prison terms in connection with Khashoggi’s murder. However, the death sentences were later commuted.
The Central Intelligence Agency concluded that MBS ordered Khashoggi's murder. Saudi officials refuted the CIA's findings. Trump also expressed skepticism at his own intelligence agency's conclusion, which came as the US was selling or seeking to sell billions of dollars worth of arms to Saudi Arabia despite its rampant war crimes in Yemen.
Hopes that former President Joe Biden would take a different approach to Saudi Arabia over war crimes and Khashoggi's murder were dashed as his administration continued selling arms to the kingdom and argued in federal court that MBS should be granted sovereign immunity in a civil case filed by the slain journalist's widow.
Trump has sought closer ties to Saudi Arabia during his second term as he courts up to $1 trillion in investments from the kingdom and works to broker diplomatic normalization between Riyadh and Israel.
The New York Times reported Monday that the Trump Organization—which is run by the president’s two eldest sons—is “in talks that could bring a Trump-branded property" to Saudi Arabia, raising concerns about possible corruption and conflicts of interest.
"We stand with Rep. Deluzio and every patriot holding the line," said one veteran group. "We reject violence. We reject intimidation. And we will never apologize for defending the oath."
Just a day after President Donald Trump suggested that six congressional Democrats should be hanged for reminding members of the US military and intelligence community of their duty not to obey illegal orders, one of those lawmakers was the target of multiple bomb threats.
A spokesperson for US Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) said Friday afternoon that his "district offices in Carnegie and Beaver County were both the targets of bomb threats this afternoon. The congressman and congressional staff are safe, and thank law enforcement for swiftly responding. Political violence and threats like this are unacceptable."
On Tuesday, the former US Navy officer had joined Democratic Reps. Jason Crow (Colo.), Maggie Goodlander (NH), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.), along with Sens. Mark Kelly (Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), for the 90-second video.
Trump—who notably incited the deadly January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol while trying to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential contest—lashed out at the six veterans of the military and intelligence agencies on his Truth Social platform Thursday, accusing them of "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" and reposting a call to "HANG THEM."
Deluzio and the others have doubled down on their message that, as he says in the video, "you must refuse illegal orders."
In a joint statement responding to Trump's remarks, the six Democrats reiterated their commitment to upholding the oaths they took "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," urged every American to "unite and condemn the president's calls for our murder and political violence," and stressed that "we will continue to lead and will not be intimidated."
Deluzio also addressed Trump's comments on CNN, denouncing his "outrageous call for political violence."
Other lawmakers, veterans, and political observers have also condemned Trump's comments—and the grassroots vet group Common Defense pointed to them on social media Friday, after Deluzio's staff confirmed the bomb threats.
"First: Common Defense unequivocally condemns political violence in all shapes, forms, and from any party. Violence has no place in our democracy. We believe in the rule of law. But we cannot ignore the cause and effect here," the organization said.
"The response to quoting the Constitution was a call for execution," the group continued. "Now, Rep. Deluzio, an Iraq War veteran, is facing actual bomb threats. When leaders normalize violence against political opponents, this or worse is the inevitable result."
"We stand with Rep. Deluzio and every patriot holding the line," Common Defense added. "We reject violence. We reject intimidation. And we will never apologize for defending the oath."