

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, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed into law H.B. 4327, a citizen-enforced total ban on abortion that took effect today immediately upon signature. Oklahoma is now the only state in the United States to successfully outlaw abortion while Roe v. Wade still stands. A coalition of Oklahoma abortion providers and a reproductive justice organization will imminently file a challenge to the ban and seek to block it in court.
All abortions after approximately six weeks of pregnancy were already banned in Oklahoma under S.B. 1503 -- another citizen-enforced abortion ban signed by Gov. Stitt earlier this month. Plaintiffs will ask for their challenge to H.B. 4327 to be added to the plaintiffs' existing case against S.B. 1503, which is currently pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Plaintiffs are still waiting on a ruling from the court to determine if S.B. 1503 will be blocked. 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 these bans from staying in effect.
On the day following S.B. 1503's implementation, Tulsa Women's Reproductive Clinic was forced to cancel 35 appointments and send home from the clinic ten patients whose pregnancies were too advanced for the clinic to provide care in compliance with S.B. 1503. Since then, providers across the state have been severely limited in the services they can provide. H.B. 4327 eliminates these services entirely.
"We are seeing the beginning of a domino effect that will spread across the entire South and Midwest if Roe falls," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "Banning abortion after six weeks was not extreme enough for Oklahoma lawmakers. The goal of the anti-abortion movement is to ensure no one can access abortion at any point for any reason. Right now, patients in Oklahoma are being thrown into a state of chaos and fear. That chaos will only intensify as surrounding states cut off access as well. We will not stop fighting for the people of Oklahoma and for everyone across the country. We all deserve the freedom to control our own bodies and lives."
"Instead of working to make communities safer, Oklahoma politicians have made it their priority to outlaw abortion, even while Roe stands," said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "The cruelty of this law and this crisis cannot be overstated. At a time when communities are facing senseless tragedies and immeasurable grief, politicians have opted to use their position and power to instill more fear -- all while taking away people's right to decide what is best for their own bodies, lives, and futures at every turn. For anyone seeking abortion in Oklahoma and beyond: Planned Parenthood and our partners are fighting for you. We will bring everything we have to make sure you can get the care you need, and challenge every ban enacted in Oklahoma."
"Ultimately, who will be prevented from having an abortion under this ban? The people who don't have the funds or resources to travel out of state," said Tamya Cox-Toure, co-chair, Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice. "Abortion bans are systemic discrimination at work. We won't stop fighting for Oklahomans, especially those who face often insurmountable barriers to accessing abortion: Black people, people of color, people who live in rural areas, and people struggling to make ends meet."
"It wasn't enough to ban abortion before many people even know they are pregnant?" said Dr. Alan Braid, owner, Tulsa Women's Reproductive Clinic. "I have watched over the last nine months as abortion access has dwindled to all but a trickle in both of the states that I provide abortion in. I'm not giving up on Oklahoma."
"Oklahoma's politicians, from the governor on down, are determined to strip rights from anyone who could become pregnant," said Emily Wales, interim president and CEO, Planned Parenthood Great Plains. "This is no surprise in a state that has consistently ranked among the worst in the nation for maternal mortality and child health outcomes. Today, for the first time in nearly 50 years, abortion is illegal - at every stage of pregnancy - in an American state. People who can become pregnant now have fewer rights and fewer protections in Oklahoma than in any other state in the union. Legislators who, in overwhelming numbers, cannot become pregnant have just made lesser citizens of those who can."
H.B. 4327 creates a bounty-hunting scheme similar to Texas's S.B. 8, which encourages the general public to bring costly and harassing lawsuits against abortion providers, health center workers, or any person who helps someone access an abortion. Those who successfully sue would be rewarded with at least $10,000 per abortion. Its effects will be felt far beyond Oklahoma: Since Texas's abortion ban took effect in September, Oklahoma has been a key access point -- with Planned Parenthood Great Plains' two Oklahoma health centers reporting a nearly 2500% increase in Texas patients in the first four months of the ban. Now, patients from both states are being pushed even further outside of their communities for essential health care.
The Oklahoma state legislature has passed several other abortion restrictions this year, including a modification of the state's "trigger" ban and a law (S.B. 612) that would ban abortion entirely in Oklahoma through criminal penalties. 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. The Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood challenged S.B. 612 on the same day they challenged S.B. 1503 and have requested S.B. 612 be blocked before it can take effect later this summer.
Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. Oklahoma 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.
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“Jeff Bezos is spending $200 billion on AI and robotics. Jeff Bezos is replacing hundreds of thousands of his workers at Amazon with robots. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.”
The Washington Post editorial board went to the trouble of marking what it called "Bernie Sanders' worst idea yet" on Wednesday, but the progressive US senator shrugged at the label and didn't appear likely to end his push for a moratorium on the construction of new artificial intelligence data centers.
The conservative-leaning editors wrote glowingly of the "mind-blowing amounts of information" that AI data centers can process and dismissively said that businesses that have invested billions of dollars in AI have erroneously been cast as the "villain in the socialist imagination."
They decried "AI doomerism" by politicians and accused lawmakers like Sanders (I-Vt.) of "fearmongering" about the data centers' water consumption and environmental harms—but neglected to mention that the rapid expansion of the massive centers has sparked grassroots outrage, with communities in states including Michigan and Wisconsin demanding that tech giants stay out of their towns, fearing skyrocketing electricity bills among other impacts.
Sanders emphasized that the Post and its owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, have a vested interest in dismissing efforts to stop the AI build-out that President Donald Trump has demanded with his executive order aimed at stopping states from regulating the industry.
Bezos, one of the richest people on the planet, created an AI startup last year with $6.2 billion in funding, some of it from his personal fortune, and Amazon—where Bezos is still the primary shareholder—has announced plans to invest $200 billion in AI and robotics.
"What a surprise," said Sanders sardonically. "The Washington Post doesn't want a moratorium on AI data centers."
Ben Inskeep, a program director for Citizens Action Coalition in Indiana, suggested the editorial board couldn't express its opposition to Sanders' proposal for a moratorium without including "an admission that it is a paid attack dog for Jeff Bezos," pointing to its required disclosure that Bezos' company is in fact investing billions of dollars in AI.
On social media, Sanders followed his response to the Post's attack with a video in which he doubled down on his objections to AI, despite the editorial board's accusation that he and others "grandstand" on the issue and its insistence that he should "be ecstatic about how much AI can help workers."
Sanders said in the video that "AI and robotics are a huge threat to the working class of this country."
"We have got to be prepared to say as loud and clear as we can that this technology is not just going to benefit the billionaires who own it," he said, "but it's going to work for the working families of our country."
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms."
A federal judge delivered a scathing ruling against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's effort to punish a Democratic US senator for warning members of the military against following unlawful orders.
US District Judge Richard Leon on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction that at least temporarily blocked Hegseth from punishing Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy captain who was one of several Democratic lawmakers to take part in a video that advised military service members that they had a duty to disobey President Donald Trump if he gave them unlawful orders.
In his ruling, Leon eviscerated Hegseth's efforts to reduce Kelly's retirement rank and pay simply for exercising his First Amendment rights.
While Leon acknowledged that active US service members do have certain restrictions on their freedom of speech, he said that these restrictions have never been applied to retired members of the US armed services.
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees," wrote Leon. "To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their government, and our constitution demands they receive it!"
The judge said he would be granting Kelly's request for an injunction because claims that his First Amendment rights were being violated were "likely to succeed on the merits," further noting that the senator has shown "irreparable harm" being done by Hegseth's efforts to censure him.
Leon concluded his ruling by imploring Hegseth to stop "trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members," and instead "reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our nation over the past 250 years."
Shortly after Leon's ruling, Kelly posted a video on social media in which he highlighted the threats posed by the Trump administration's efforts to silence dissent.
"Today, a federal court made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said," Kelly remarked. "But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That's why I couldn't let this stand."
Kelly went on to accuse the Trump administration of "cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of everyone they can."
Today a federal court made clear Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.
This is a critical moment to show this administration they can't keep undermining Americans' rights.
I also know this might not be over yet, because Trump… pic.twitter.com/9dRe9pmeCd
— Senator Mark Kelly (@SenMarkKelly) February 12, 2026
Leon's ruling came less than two days after it was reported that Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host who is now serving as US attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to get Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers criminally indicted on undisclosed charges before getting rejected by a DC grand jury.
According to a Wednesday report from NBC News, none of the grand jurors who heard evidence against the Democrats believed prosecutors had done enough to establish probable cause that the Democrats had committed a crime, leading to a rare unanimous rejection of an attempted federal prosecution.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, has said that videotaping officers on the job is a form of "doxing" and "violence."
The US Department of Homeland Security has claimed for months that filming immigration agents on the job constitutes a criminal offense. But under oath during a Senate Homeland Security Committee oversight hearing on Thursday, the leaders of immigration agencies under the department’s umbrella admitted this is not true.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the chair of the committee, interrogated Todd Lyons, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Rodney Scott, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP); and Joseph Edlow, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) about the recent surge of agents in Minnesota, which has resulted in the killing of two US citizens since January.
He zeroed in on the case of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse who was shot by a pair of immigration agents on January 24, showing footage of the incident leading up to Pretti's killing, which DHS claimed was justified prior to any investigation taking place.
"So what we see is the beginning of the encounter with Alexander Pretti. He's filming in the middle of the street," Paul explained after rolling the tape.
The senator then asked Scott and Lyons, "Is filming of ICE or Border Patrol either an assault or a crime in any way?"
They both responded flatly, "No."
Courts have generally affirmed that filming law enforcement agents is protected by the First Amendment. But this admission by Lyons and Scott is a major deviation from what their parent agency has claimed.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, stated during a July press briefing that “violence” against DHS agents includes “doxing them” and “videotaping them where they’re at when they’re out on operations.”
Even in the wake of last month's shootings, DHS has held to this line, with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin claiming that “videoing our officers in an effort to dox them and reveal their identities is a federal crime and a felony.”
Agents have been directed to treat those who film ICE as criminals—a DHS bulletin from June described filming at protests as "unlawful civil unrest" tactics and "threats."
Several videos out of Minnesota, Maine, and other places flooded by ICE have documented federal agents telling bystanders to stop recording and issuing threats against them or detaining them.
In one case, a bystander was told that because she was filming, she was going to be put in a "nice little database" and was now "considered a domestic terrorist."
Last month, a federal judge sided with a group of journalists in California who cited the June bulletin to argue that Noem had "established, sanctioned, and ratified an agency policy of treating video recording of DHS agents in public as a threat that may be responded to with force and addressed as a crime," in violation of the First Amendment.