May, 11 2022, 04:57pm EDT
NARAL Pro-Choice America Condemns Senate Republicans for Blocking Advancement of the Women's Health Protection Act
Today, once again, Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked the advancement of the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA). This critical bill would safeguard the legal right to abortion throughout the United States, which is more important than ever after a leaked draft majority opinion revealed that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to soon overturn Roe v. Wade. Every Republican in the Senate voted against advancing WHPA and protecting our fundamental rights.
WASHINGTON
Today, once again, Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked the advancement of the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA). This critical bill would safeguard the legal right to abortion throughout the United States, which is more important than ever after a leaked draft majority opinion revealed that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to soon overturn Roe v. Wade. Every Republican in the Senate voted against advancing WHPA and protecting our fundamental rights.
NARAL Pro-Choice America President Mini Timmaraju released the following statement in response:
"Today, Republicans in the Senate once again failed the American people. The recently leaked draft decision made clear that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade and underscored how urgent our fight to protect reproductive freedom is--but these out-of-touch lawmakers simply do not care. Instead of safeguarding our fundamental rights, Republican senators have once again abdicated their responsibility.
We are grateful to Leader Schumer and Democratic leadership for bringing this vote to the floor and to every senator who voted in support of this critical bill. Thank you for recognizing the importance of this moment and for stepping up to protect our freedom to make our own decisions about our lives, families, and futures. We know that these cruel bans and restrictions on abortion most harm those who already face barriers to accessing the care they need--including women; Black, Indigenous, and people of color; those working to make ends meet; LGBTQ+ people; immigrants; young people; those living in rural communities; and people with disabilities. We must take action to fight back.
We have a message for the lawmakers who blocked this bill and refused to fight for our freedoms and our families: Voters will remember who showed up for them at this moment of crisis and who chose to walk away. We'll see you at the ballot box."
The Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA) would safeguard the federal right to abortion across the country, even if Roe v. Wade falls. This legislation would create a right for healthcare providers to provide abortion care and a corresponding right for people to receive that care, free from bans and medically unnecessary restrictions that single out abortion and block access. In September, the U.S. House of Representatives passed WHPA in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to block Texas' vigilante-enforced abortion ban (SB 8). Shortly before the House vote, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy in support of this critical legislation. Republicans in the U.S. Senate first blocked the advancement of the Women's Health Protection Act in February.
The fate of Roe v. Wade is in the hands of the anti-choice supermajority on the Supreme Court--and the recently leaked draft Court opinion confirmed that the Court is poised to overturn the landmark abortion rights case when it rules in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in the coming weeks. The case concerns Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban and directly challenges Roe. If the Court upholds Mississippi's ban, it will end the constitutional right to abortion recognized by Roe, and states will take swift action to ban abortion. Should Roe fall, 28 states would likely take action to prohibit abortion outright. Of those, 13 states already have "trigger bans" in place, which would ban abortion automatically if Roe is overturned.
As abortion rights and access face threats from state legislatures to the Supreme Court, NARAL Pro-Choice America is ramping up its work to elect candidates across the country during a critical moment in the fight for reproductive freedom. Recently, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and EMILY's List, announced a plan to collectively spend a historic $150 million on the 2022 midterms to ensure the election of reproductive freedom champions up and down the ballot. While each will run its own electoral programs with their own advocacy and political organizations, the announcement represents a united effort to aggressively respond to the unprecedented attacks on reproductive freedom across the country and raise voters' awareness of the lawmakers who are to blame.
For over 50 years, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) has fought to protect and advance reproductive freedom at the federal and state levels—including access to abortion care, birth control, pregnancy and post-partum care, and paid family leave—for everybody. Reproductive Freedom for All is powered by its more than 4 million members from every state and congressional district in the country, representing the 8 in 10 Americans who support legal abortion.
202.973.3000LATEST NEWS
New State Laws Aim to Protect Environment, Consumers as Trump Wages All-Out War on Climate
"The gridlock and partisanship we see in Washington, DC can be dispiriting. But history shows that states can build momentum that eventually leads to change at the federal level."
Dec 29, 2025
Even as President Donald Trump and his administration have been ripping up environmental and consumer protection regulations, a number of state laws are set to take effect next year that could at least mitigate some of the damage.
A Monday statement from Environment America and the Public Interest Network highlighted a number of new laws aimed at curbing corporate polluters and enhancing consumer welfare.
First, the groups highlighted "Right to Repair" laws set to take effect in Washington, Nevada, Oregon, and Colorado, which give people the right to repair their own appliances and electronics without burdensome costs or barriers.
The groups lavished particular praise on Colorado's "Right to Repair" laws that they said provide "the broadest repair protections in the country," with new regulations that will give businesses in the state "access to what they and independent repair providers need to fix their electronics themselves."
Illinois, meanwhile, will fully phase out the sale of fluorescent lightbulbs, which will be replaced by energy-efficient LED bulbs. The groups estimate that eliminating the fluorescent bulbs will collectively save Illinois households more than $1.5 billion on their utility bills by 2050, while also reducing energy waste and mercury pollution.
Illinois also drew praise for enacting a ban on polystyrene foam foodware that will take effect on January 1.
The groups also highlighted the work being done in Oregon to protect consumers with legislation mandating price transparency to eliminate surprise junk fees on purchases; prohibiting ambulance companies from socking out-of-network patients with massive fees for rides to nearby hospitals; and placing new restrictions on the ability of medical debt to negatively impact a person's credit score.
California also got a mention in the groups' release for closing a loophole that allowed supermarkets to continue using plastic bags and for creating a new privacy tool for consumers allowing them to request that online data brokers delete all of the personal information they have gathered on them over the years.
Emily Rusch, vice president and senior director of state offices for the Public Interest Network, contrasted the action being taken in the states to protect consumers and the environment with a lack of action being done at the federal level.
"The gridlock and partisanship we see in Washington, DC can be dispiriting," said Rusch. "But history shows that states can build momentum that eventually leads to change at the federal level. As we build on this progress in 2026, we look forward to working with anyone—Republican, Democrat, or independent—with whom we can find common ground."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Warns Trump and Burgum's Halting of Offshore Wind Projects Is Illegal
“Burgum’s actions on offshore wind appear to be motivated by the personal financial interests of those in the administration, not our collective national interests."
Dec 29, 2025
A week after the US Department of the Interior said it was immediately halting five offshore wind projects in the interest of "national security," a watchdog group told congressional committees Monday that the move is "not legally defensible" and raises "significant" questions about conflicts of interest concerning a top DOI official's investments in fossil gas.
Timothy Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), wrote to the top members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Committee on Natural Resources regarding the pause on projects off the coasts of Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts—projects that account for billions of dollars in investment, employ thousands of people, and generate sustainable energy for roughly 2.5 million homes and businesses.
The announcement made by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum last week pertained to "five vague, perfunctory, cookie-cutter orders" halting the projects, wrote Whitehouse, but PEER is concerned that the orders were issued to evade the Congressional Review Act (CRA), under which the action to halt the projects likely constitutes a "major rule."
Whitehouse explained:
Under the CRA, a rule that meets any one of three criteria (an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or in pertinent part significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation) is a major rule. Interior’s pause likely meets all three.
As a major rule under the CRA, the pause cannot take effect until at least 60 days after BOEM provides Congress the requisite notification and report under the CRA, which, according to GAO’s database, has not yet occurred. Congress must use its oversight authority to unveil the truth and, as appropriate, and to enforce the rule of law.
He said in a statement that “Burgum’s move is designed to bypass all congressional and public input."
The CRA states that a rule is "the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency.”
Press statements by the DOI and by Burgum last week were "statements of general applicability and imminent future effect, designed to implement policy," wrote Whitehouse, who also said the interior secretary embarked on "a coordinated rollout with Fox News entities."
On December 22, Fox anchor Maria Bartiromo asked Burgum at 8:00 am Eastern, “What next action did you want to tell us about this morning?” Five minutes later, FoxNews.com published its first story on Burgum's orders, citing a press release that had not yet been made public and including a quote from the secretary about the "emerging national security risk" posed by the offshore wind projects.
"If last week’s actions are allowed to stand, future presidents will have unchecked authority under the guise of national security to target federal leases related to entire disfavored energy industries for political purposes."
Burgum's announcement to Fox came at least one to two hours before Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) acting Director Matthew Giacona provided the orders to the lessees running the five wind projects.
Further, wrote Whitehouse, "Burgum’s voluminous public comments in the hours and days since the pause further show the true purpose of Interior’s singular action."
"The national security pretext quickly gives way to broad and spurious talking points about the 'Green New Scam,' how 'wind doesn’t blow 24-7' (evincing Burgum’s seeming unfamiliarity with energy storage technologies), and unyielding promotion of liquified natural gas projects," wrote Whitehouse.
Aside from the alleged illegality of Burgum's order, PEER pointed to Giacona's potential conflicts of interest with BOEM operations and specifically with halting wind projects. Giacona is a "diligent filer" of financial disclosure forms required by the Ethics in Government Act, noted Whitehouse—but those forms point to potential benefits he may reap from shutting down offshore wind infrastructure.
Giacona reported his purchase of interests in the United States Natural Gas Fund (UNG) on September 16. The fund tracks daily price movements of "natural" gas delivered at the Henry Hub in Louisiana and is subject to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
"Accordingly, a government employee who has an interest in UNG also has a potential conflict of interest with the underlying holdings of UNG (currently primarily natural gas futures contracts at the Henry Hub)," wrote Whitehouse.
PEER does not know whether Giacona continues to hold a financial interest in UNG or whether the offshore wind pause will have a "direct and predictable effect on a financial interest in UNG," but Whitehouse noted that Burgum and DIO have entwined the pause with the promotion of liquefied natural gas.
"It is disconcerting that Mr. Giacona temporarily had even a de minimis financial interest in natural gas futures while also leading the agency that manages the development of natural gas resources on the outer continental shelf," wrote Whitehouse, adding that Giacona also sold interests in the United States Oil Fund on September 3, while overseeing BOEM.
Based on Giacona's investments, said Whitehouse, “Burgum’s actions on offshore wind appear to be motivated by the personal financial interests of those in the administration, not our collective national interests. This is another misguided step in transforming the federal government into a franchise of the fossil fuel industry.”
“On public lands across the United States, the Department of the Interior has tens of thousands of additional active leases related to oil, gas, wind, solar, and geothermal production and mining for energy-related minerals," he added. "If last week’s actions are allowed to stand, future presidents will have unchecked authority under the guise of national security to target federal leases related to entire disfavored energy industries for political purposes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Suggests US Bombed 'Big Facility' in Venezuela. No One Seems to Know What He's Talking About
Administration officials have yet to provide any details about the supposed strike, which would mark a massive escalation in the president's lawless military campaign.
Dec 29, 2025
President Donald Trump claimed during a recent discussion about his high-seas boat bombing blitz that US forces took out "a big facility" as part of the Venezuela-centered campaign—but no one seems to know what he's talking about.
Trump said Friday during an apparently impromptu phone call to billionaire supporter John Catsimatidis—who owns and hosts programming on WABC radio in New York—that South American narcotraffickers "have a big plant or a big facility where the ships come from," and that “two nights ago, we knocked that out.”
"We hit them very hard," the president added.
On Monday, Trump was asked during a meeting with fugitive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to clarify Friday's claim.
"There was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs," the president said, "so we hit all the boats and now we hit the area. It's the implementation area. That's where they implement, and that is no longer around."
Neither Trump nor anyone in his administration offered any evidence to support the claim. There have also been no public statements from any Venezuelan government official regarding any US attack.
Q: Can you say any more about the explosion in Venezuela that you mentioned in a radio interview. Did the military do that?
TRUMP: Well, it doesn't matter. But there was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs. We hit the area. pic.twitter.com/hvZa7fKxbq
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 29, 2025
Trump did say during a Christmas Eve call to troops taking part in escalating hostilities against Venezuela—whose socialist leader, President Nicolás Maduro, has long been in Trump's regime-change crosshairs—that, after more than two dozen boat strikes, "now we're going after the land."
Threats by Trump to bomb targets inside Venezuela—or even invade the oil-rich South American nation in order to oust Maduro—are nothing new. The president has deployed an armada of warships and thousands of US troops to the region and has also authorized covert Central Intelligence Agency action against Maduro. Earlier this month, Trump vowed that the US would attack Venezuela "on land," and "very soon, too."
However, Trump's remarks on Friday left observers scratching their heads and scouring news reports in a fruitless effort to make sense of the president's claim.
One US official interviewed by the Intercept on condition of anonymity said the US targeted a “facility"—but declined to disclose its location, or whether it was attacked by US forces.
“That announcement was misleading,” the official said of Trump's claim last week.
There is some speculation that a Christmas Eve explosion and fire at a warehouse on the grounds of a Primazol chemical plant in Zulia state may have been caused by a US strike. However, the site—which reportedly makes products including chicken feed—is not located directly on any coast, and Primazol issued a statement "categorically" rejecting claims that the facility was bombed.
If Trump did order any bombing of targets in Venezuela, it would be a major escalation and clear act of war by a man who, while billing himself as "the most anti-war president in history," has now, with last week's attack on Nigeria, bombed more countries than any president in history.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular