August, 24 2022, 08:55am EDT
Over 650 Groups Call on Congressional Leaders to Reject Manchin's Dirty Pipeline Deal
More than 650 climate, environmental justice, public health, youth, and progressive organizations sent a letter to Congressional leadership today to oppose the fossil fuel expansion deal proposed by West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin to Democratic leadership in exchange for his support of the Inflation Reduction Act.
WASHINGTON
More than 650 climate, environmental justice, public health, youth, and progressive organizations sent a letter to Congressional leadership today to oppose the fossil fuel expansion deal proposed by West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin to Democratic leadership in exchange for his support of the Inflation Reduction Act.
The letter was signed by a broad range of environmental and climate groups, including Oil Change International, the Center for Biological Diversity, Food & Water Watch, Indigenous Environmental Network, Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, Oxfam America, the Sierra Club, the Sunrise Movement, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice, along with progressive political organizations Center for Popular Democracy, Indivisible, MoveOn, NAACP, Our Revolution, People's Action, and Public Citizen. The letter was also officially endorsed by the Climate Justice Alliance, Green New Deal Network, and the People vs Fossil Fuels Coalition steering committee.
According to a leaked draft, the proposed dirty infrastructure bill would fast-track fossil fuel projects like the Mountain Valley Pipeline, and undercut basic environmental protections.
"This fossil fuel wish list is a cruel and direct attack on environmental justice communities and the climate," the group's letter said. "This legislation would truncate and hollow-out the environmental review process, weaken Tribal consultations, and make it far harder for frontline communities to have their voices heard by gutting bedrock protections in the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act."
The proposal also requires the president to create a list of at least 25 projects deemed to be of "strategic national importance"; at least five of the priority items "shall be projects to produce, process, transport, or store fossil fuel products, or biofuels, including projects to export or import those products." The United States must reject new fossil fuel projects to meet President Biden's emissions reduction goals and comply with what science says is necessary to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The Mountain Valley Pipeline alone would lead to annual emissions equivalent to over 89 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to analysis by Oil Change International. This is equal to the emissions from 26 coal plants or 19 million passenger vehicles per year.
"Prolonging the fossil fuel era perpetuates environmental racism, is wildly out of step with climate science, and hamstrings our nation's ability to avert a climate disaster," the letter highlights. "Supporting this legislation would represent a profound betrayal of frontline communities and constituents across the country who have called on you to prevent the multitude of harms of fossil fuels and advance a just, renewable energy future."
Reports indicate that Congressional leadership plan to introduce the legislation in September with the hope of a final vote before the end of the month. But some Democratic leaders, including House Natural Resources Committee Chair Rep. Raul Grijalva, have spoken out against the deal and called for it not to be included in the federal spending resolution, which also must pass before the end of September.
Full Text of Letter: https://priceofoil.org/dirty-side-deal-letter
Quotes
"Appalachia is home to many people, but more specifically, the home of my ancestors of the Occaneechee, Monacan and Saponi and many other Indigenous peoples. This is a dirty deal made at the expense of us," said Dr. Crystal Cavalier of 7 Directions of Service. "It is an erasure of my people and ancestors again, with no regard for the water, nature and people. We refuse to be a sacrifice."
"Here in Appalachia, on the frontline of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, we refuse to be sacrificed for Senator Manchin's political gain and to prop up the dying fossil fuel industry," said Russell Chisholm, Mountain Valley Watch Coordinator. "We stand in solidarity with all frontlines to say 'no' to this dirty deal that puts our communities in more danger."
"The so-called 'permitting reform' deal is nothing but a deadly fossil fuel industry wishlist," said Collin Rees, United States Program Manager at Oil Change International. "The Mountain Valley Pipeline is a fracked gas disaster that won't be built, and we won't allow Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer to attack environmental justice communities by removing some of their only tools to oppose destructive projects. Congress must kill this dangerous bill immediately and empower frontline communities to confront the climate crisis."
"In Michigan, no matter our race or zip code, we all want clean and healthy neighborhoods where our families can thrive. But Senators Manchin and Schumer, and the American Petroleum Institute are threatening our rights to clean air and clean water with their 'side-deal,'" said Juan Jhong-Chung, Climate Justice Director at Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition. "This bill would fast track toxic projects in Black, Brown, Indigenous and poor communities. We should not be forced to host more oil pipelines or dirty infrastructure for false solutions like carbon capture, hydrogen, and nuclear power. We demand that our elected officials stop sacrificing our people for the financial gain of polluters."
"I have more than five years of experience in the solar industry and I am passionate about helping people reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. People's lives will change as our world embraces renewables. That is my dream. I am grateful I discovered a passion and purpose in life so our future children may live in a clean and green world," said Serina Morena, a member of the Green Workers Alliance. "Taking away environmental reviews of pipelines and other fossil fuels projects is a terrible idea. Instead we need more renewable energy and the jobs they create."
"It's atrocious that Congress is even considering dismantling bedrock environmental protections just to please one senator," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Democrats must expose this measure for what it is -- a total giveaway to the fossil fuel industry. This backroom deal would sacrifice frontline communities, ensure decades' more toxic extraction and turn up the fossil-fueled broiler that's heating the whole planet. This poisonous plan must be stopped."
"The proposal from Senator Manchin is nothing more than a wish list from Big Oil, whose only goal is more profit at the expense of people and the planet," said Thomas Meyer, national organizing manager at Food & Water Watch. "Members of Congress who fought for clean energy incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act must now speak up strongly and swiftly against this massive rollback of public health and environmental protections that will fast track fossil fuel projects."
"This dirty side deal is nothing short of a wholesale giveaway to the fossil fuel industry to the detriment of frontline communities, Tribal nations, and Mother Earth," said Joye Braun, National Pipelines Organizer of the Indigenous Environmental Network. "The world is on fire and negotiating the amount of fuel for those flames is not acceptable. Congress needs to understand that there is no compromise when it comes to protecting the next seven generations of life and beyond."
Oil Change International is a research, communications, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the ongoing transition to clean energy.
(202) 518-9029LATEST NEWS
Dems Decry GOP's $15 Billion Rural Hospital Fund as Sick Joke Compared to $800 Billion in Medicaid Cuts
Instead of offering a "disaster fund" for rural hospitals that would lose crucial funding due to Medicaid cuts, one Democratic senator said Republicans should not "create the problem in the first place."
Jun 26, 2025
"That ought to do it."
That was Democratic Senator Ron Wyden's sardonic response Wednesday to a new proposal put forward by Senate Finance Committee Republicans whose proposed solution to the devastating impacts of the $800 billion in Medicaid cuts they want to impose is a so-called $15 billion "stabilization fund" for rural hospitals that rely on Medicaid to operate.
Wyden was among several Democrats who appeared fed up this week with Republicans' attempts to paper over the devastation hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid cuts would cause in communities across the United States.
While several Republicans in the House have acknowledged that cutting Medicaid to help fund tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans would harm "vulnerable constituents"—echoing warnings that Democrats and progressive advocates have been shouting for months—Senate GOP lawmakers have also evidently looked at the party's budget reconciliation bill and its Medicaid provider tax decrease, which would slash state funding for Medicaid, and come to terms with the suffering the proposal would inflict on their own voters.
"The devastation to healthcare in the United States will be red and blue," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told the news outlet NOTUS. "Red, white, and blue, across the country, and I think they're hearing from constituents."
According to a report released last week by the AFL-CIO, with states losing Medicaid funding from the provider tax decrease, more than 330 rural hospitals are expected to go out of business if the Republicans manage to pass the reconciliation bill as written.
"This is literal life-and-death for folks who will have to travel even farther to access the healthcare they need," said Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive think tank and advocacy group.
Democrats suggested the apparent panic created by public outrage over the proposed cuts led Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee to circulate a memo Wednesday proposing a $15 billion fund for rural hospitals—but not facilities in urban areas, which also serve many Medicaid recipients but lie in largely Democratic areas.
About half the money in the fund would be made available for rural hospitals across the country and the other half would go to specific hospitals chosen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a Republican senator toldThe Hill.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) denounced the proposal as "a slush fund" that exemplified "the corruption" behind the GOP's megabill.
Republicans including Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) have proposed a larger $100 billion fund for hospitals—a number Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) scoffed at Wednesday—but Democrats were quick to point out that a bigger fund wouldn't reverse the impact of $800 billion in Medicaid cuts.
"The rural hospital fund is a fig leaf that will let them pretend that they can take away hundreds of billions of dollars in healthcare reimbursements," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told NOTUS.
Several Democrats and advocates said Republicans were desperately "trying to solve a problem they're creating" by slashing a healthcare program used by more than 71 million Americans.
"The obvious question is, don't create the problem in the first place," Wyden told NOTUS. "Don't create the need for things like disaster funds."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Victory for Working People': Judge Blocks Trump Attack on Public Employee Unions
"We applaud this ruling as a critical defense of our communities and our rights at work," said the head of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.
Jun 26, 2025
A federal judge on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from ending collective bargaining rights for federal employees whose work the administration says includes national security aspects. The union plaintiffs in the case hailed the decision as a "victory for working people."
"This executive order is a direct effort to silence federal workers' voice on the job—an essential freedom that helps maintain the integrity of our democracy," wrote Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, one of the unions that brought the lawsuit.
"Federal workers serve every community, and targeting them through political retribution threatens the freedom of all working people to fight for fair treatment. We applaud this ruling as a critical defense of our communities and our rights at work," Saunders said.
On March 27, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order with the aim of terminating collective bargaining with federal labor unions across many federal agencies, including the U.S. State Department, the Department of Justice, the Federal Communications Commission, and the General Services Administration. These agencies, according to the executive order, are "determined to have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work."
Under federal law, the president is authorized to exclude agencies and subdivisions of agencies if those are the agency's primary function.
In an accompanying fact sheet, the White House called out "certain federal unions" which have "declared war on President Trump's agenda."
According to the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the executive order impacts nearly a million federal employees.
In April, six unions that represent federal workers, including AFGE, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, arguing that that the executive order unconstitutionally retaliates against the union plaintiffs for their activities opposing Trump, which they argue is protected First Amendment activity.
In their complaint, the unions said that the Trump administration erred when it applied the national security exemption to workers whose jobs are not related to national security.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge James Donato highlighted the White House fact sheet published alongside the order: "The fact sheet called out federal unions for vocal opposition to President Trump's agenda. It condemned unions who criticized the president and expressed support only for unions who toed the line. It mandated the dissolution of long-standing collective bargaining rights and other workplace protections for federal unions deemed oppositional to the president."
"All of this is solid evidence of a tie between the exercise of First Amendment rights and a government sanction," he wrote.
Donato also noted Trump "applied the national security label to an unprecedented swath of federal agencies, including whole cabinet departments for the first time in history."
David J. Holway, national president of National Association of Government Employees, another plaintiff, said that "this executive order isn't about national security. President Trump is punishing NAGE and other unions for protecting the rights of workers and standing up to the administration’s unlawful actions. The court made it clear: national security cannot be used as a smokescreen to silence federal workers. No president is above the law."
According to CNN, the judge's decision on Tuesday clashes with a ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in May lifted a different judge's block on the same executive order, in a case brought by a separate union.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'People Will Die,' Warn Progressives as Supreme Court Lets States Defund Planned Parenthood
"This is a systematic decimation of access to reproductive healthcare and a signifier of what else is likely to come," warned one critic.
Jun 26, 2025
In its latest blow to reproductive healthcare in the United States, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority on Thursday blocked Planned Parenthood and one of its patients from suing South Carolina over its defunding of the medical provider because it performs abortions—a decision that critics say will cost lives as more Republican-controlled states follow suit.
At question in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic was whether Medicaid beneficiaries can sue in order to secure healthcare services under a law that allows patients to choose any qualified provider. The high court ruled 6-3 that they cannot, with liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
"The decision whether to let private plaintiffs enforce a new statutory right poses delicate questions of public policy. New rights for some mean new duties for others," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. "And private enforcement actions, meritorious or not, can force governments to direct money away from public services and spend it instead on litigation."
"The job of resolving how best to weigh those competing costs and benefits belongs to the people's elected representatives, not
unelected judges charged with applying the law as they find it," Gorsuch added.
Concurring with the majority, far-right Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the ruling invites further scrutiny of Section 1983, the federal law empowering individuals to sue state and local government officials for violating their constitutional rights.
And, predictably, in Medina, Justice Thomas isn't content to axe Planned Parenthood from Medicaid. He would go further ... "to reexamine more broadly this Court’s §1983 jurisprudence . . . ."This is an invitation to undermine a major foundation of civil rights litigation.
[image or embed]
— Melissa Murray (@profmmurray.bsky.social) June 26, 2025 at 7:17 AM
In a furious dissent, Jackson wrote that "the court's decision today is not the first to so weaken the landmark civil rights protections that Congress enacted during the Reconstruction era."
"That means we do have a sense of what comes next: As with those past rulings, today's decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people," she continued. "At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them."
"And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians—and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country—of a deeply personal freedom: the 'ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable,'" Jackson added. "The court today disregards Congress' express desire to prevent that very outcome."
More than 70 million Americans rely upon Medicaid, the federal government's primary health insurance program for lower-income people. The program is facing the prospect of major cuts under a Republican budget proposal that critics warn could cause millions of people to lose their healthcare coverage in service to a massive tax break backed by President Donald Trump that would disproportionately benefit the rich and corporations.
According to Planned Parenthood Federation of America president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson, "currently, 20% of South Carolinians—over 1 million—receive healthcare services through the Medicaid program, and approximately 5% of those recipients sought sexual and reproductive health care services at Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (PPSAT) so far this year."
Responding to Thursday's ruling, McGill Johnson said that "the consequences are not theoretical in South Carolina or other states with hostile legislatures."
"Patients need access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and more. And right now, lawmakers in Congress are trying to 'defund' Planned Parenthood as part of their long-term goal to shut down Planned Parenthood and ban abortion nationwide," she added. "Make no mistake, the attacks are ongoing and Planned Parenthood will continue to do everything possible to show up in communities across the country and provide care."
Under tremendous Republican-led pressure, Planned Parenthood has closed or announced plans to close at least 20 locations across seven states since the beginning of the year.
"Today's decision is a grave injustice that strikes at the very bedrock of American freedom and promises to send South Carolina deeper into a healthcare crisis," PPSAT president and CEO Paige Johnson said following Thursday's decision. "Twice, justices of this court denied to even hear this case because [South Carolina Gov. Henry] McMaster's intent is clear: weaponize anti-abortion sentiment to deprive communities with low incomes of basic healthcare."
"Planned Parenthood South Atlantic will continue to operate and offer care in South Carolina, including for people enrolled in Medicaid," Johnson added. "To our patients, we will do everything in our power to ensure you can get the care you need at low or no cost to you. Know that we are still here for you, and we will never stop fighting for you to reclaim the rights and dignity you deserve."
Destiny Lopez, co-president and CEO of the Guttmacher Institute, called the ruling "a grave injustice."
Lopez continued:
At a time when healthcare is already costly and difficult to access, stripping patients of their right to high-quality, affordable healthcare at the provider of their choosing is a dangerous violation of bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom.
Specifically targeting Planned Parenthood has long been a strategy of the anti-abortion movement. Planned Parenthood health centers are an irreplaceable part of the U.S. healthcare system; Guttmacher data show that among the 4.7 million contraceptive patients served by publicly supported clinics in 2020, one in three received care from Planned Parenthood.
"In the face of attempts to 'defund' Planned Parenthood and attack Medicaid, Title X, and other pillars of reproductive healthcare, the court's actions cannot be considered in a vacuum," Lopez asserted. "This is a systematic decimation of access to reproductive healthcare and a signifier of what else is likely to come. Everyone deserves choice in their healthcare provider and access to the family planning they need."
Progressive groups and individuals also condemned Thursday's ruling, with the Freedom From Religion Foundation lamenting that "Christian nationalists win, women and low-income patients lose."
"This isn't justice," FFRF added. "It's religious favoritism at the highest level."
Planned Parenthood provides affordable:➡ Cancer screening➡ STD testing and treatment➡ Prenatal supportToday's decision from SCOTUS to allow SC to remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid means that people will be sicker and people will die.www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...
[image or embed]
— Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (@jayapal.house.gov) June 26, 2025 at 7:34 AM
Meagan Hatcher-Mays, senior adviser at United for Democracy, said in a statement that "millions of Medicaid patients across the country rely on Planned Parenthood health centers for their primary and reproductive care, and people who face systemic racism and discrimination—Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities, as well as LGBTQ+ people and women—are more likely to be covered by Medicaid."
"It's ironic that the MAGA justices issued this ruling today, almost three years to the day that they overturned Roe v. Wade and threw abortion access into chaos across the country," Hatcher-Mays added. "Today's ruling is a further attack on healthcare, bodily autonomy, and our freedoms. This ruling clearly harms communities in South Carolina, and it's a matter of time before we see that harm expand further into the country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular