September, 08 2023, 11:23am EDT

Florida Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Abortion Ban Challenge
TALLAHASSEE, Fla.
The Florida Supreme Court heard oral argument today in a case brought by abortion providers challenging the state’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy as a blatant violation of decades of established law within the state constitution. In the case, the State has argued that Floridians have no state constitutional right to abortion and therefore politicians could ban abortion entirely. Unless the court blocks the 15-week ban, a separate law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis earlier this year that bans abortion at six weeks in pregnancy — a time when many people don’t even know they are pregnant — will automatically go into effect 30 days after the court issues its decision.
The effects of the 15-week ban have been devastating for Floridians. Since the ban went into effect over a year ago, many people seeking abortions have been forced to travel long distances out of state to access care. Others have been forced to carry pregnancies against their will, subjecting them to the life-altering — and sometimes life-threatening — consequences of pregnancy.
Under the law’s limited exceptions, even patients in dire circumstances have been unable to get the care they need. In one circumstance, a woman whose water broke at 18 weeks of pregnancy nearly died of sepsis after being forced to wait for lifesaving care. While she knew that her child would not survive and that continuing the pregnancy put her life at risk, she was sent to wait at home until her condition was so dangerous that a doctor could induce labor without violating the state’s law. In another situation, a 14-year-old survivor of rape was unable to have an abortion and forced to continue her pregnancy because Florida’s 15-week ban — compounding the traumatic experience the minor had to suffer in addition to sexual assault and an unwanted pregnancy.
Abortion providers, advocates, and attorneys will hold a virtual press conference today at 12:30 p.m. ET to answer questions shortly after oral argument. To RSVP to the virtual press conference, please fill out this form.
Below are statements from plaintiffs and litigators:
Whitney White, staff attorney, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project:
“The devastating 15-week ban has been in effect for more than a year, in defiance of four decades of well-established protections under the Florida Constitution. Not satisfied with that, the state has now asked the court to wipe out any constitutional protection for Floridians’ ability to have an abortion at all, clearing the way for Florida to enforce Gov. DeSantis’ ban on abortion at six weeks of pregnancy, a time when many people don’t even know they are pregnant. The Florida Supreme Court should respect the rule of law and protect the right of people to make personal medical decisions during pregnancy for themselves.”
Stephanie Fraim, president and CEO, Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida:
“Across the state, Floridians are outraged that the government continues to interfere in their personal medical decisions. The people’s voice needs to be part of this. Today, we brought that voice to the Florida Supreme Court. The people of Florida have said over and over that their right to control their own bodies and make their own health care decisions should remain a protected right in the Florida constitution. Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court must respect the decades of precedent that make this law clearly unconstitutional. Floridians understand that this ban is a gross overreach into their lives, and they will not stand for it. We will continue to fight for our reproductive rights through all possible avenues.”
Alexandra Mandado, president and CEO, Planned Parenthood of South, East and North Florida:
“Every day that Florida’s abortion ban is in effect is another day that people’s lives are at risk. A decision upholding the abortion ban would be unconscionable, continuing to deny people control over their own bodies and futures. We already know that this ban has endangered Floridians and their families. Upholding it would only worsen our state’s health. When abortion is banned, health care providers cannot act in their patients’ best interest, and they cannot train the next generation of needed medical professionals to do so, either. The Florida Supreme Court must act in the interest of all Floridians and strike down this ban.”
Kelly Flynn, president and CEO, A Woman’s Choice of Jacksonville:
“Florida prides itself on individual freedom without government interference and abortion bans directly contradict who we are. This 15-week abortion ban undermines the care we provide to patients who come to our clinic, often under complex and difficult circumstances. Many patients in Florida aren’t able to receive an abortion by fifteen weeks, let alone six weeks, due to financial obstacles, logistical hurdles, and navigating overlapping policies designed to make it harder to provide and access care. A Woman’s Choice of Jacksonville has served as a crucial access point for abortion care in Florida and the South, and we remain committed to providing abortion care to Floridians and attaining abortion justice for all.”
Caroline Sacerdote, staff attorney, U.S. litigation, the Center for Reproductive Rights:
“Florida’s 15-week abortion ban is endangering the health, safety, and dignity of Floridians. This ban blatantly violates the Florida Constitution and forces patients to travel hundreds, and even thousands, of miles to access abortion care—if they are able—or to forgo critical health care altogether. People in the Sunshine State deserve timely, compassionate, and affordable abortion care. The Florida Supreme Court should block this ban, putting a stop to the extraordinary hardships this ban continues to inflict on pregnant people every day.”
April Otterberg, partner, Jenner & Block:
“HB5 unconstitutionally limits access to abortion services, a fundamental right that has long been protected by the Florida Constitution. We hope the Florida Supreme Court will enforce the state constitution and overturn this law.”
Hélène Barthelemy, staff attorney, ACLU of Florida:
“Let’s be clear: Floridians overwhelmingly support legal and safe abortion care. Floridians want the freedom to make their own private healthcare decisions without the government interfering in their personal lives. The court’s decision could harm even more people and prevent Floridians from deciding whether, if, when, how to continue their pregnancy before most even know they’re pregnant. We urge the Florida Supreme Court to act in accordance with the will of the people, protect their freedom to medical care, and block this unconstitutional ban.
Despite overwhelming opposition to banning abortion among Florida voters and health care professionals, Gov. DeSantis signed the 15-week ban into law in spring of last year. This year, Gov. DeSantis signed a six-week ban that will go into effect unless the court blocks the 15-week ban.
Two-thirds of Floridians support the right to abortion, and voters have consistently cast their ballots to ensure that the state Constitution provides independent protection for the right to abortion. In 1980, Florida voters amended the state Constitution to provide broad protections for individual privacy rights — including abortion. And in 2012, voters overwhelmingly rejected Amendment 6, which would have taken those abortion protections away.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the law firm Jenner & Block filed the case — Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, et al. v. State of Florida, et al. — on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida; Planned Parenthood of South, East and North Florida; Gainesville Woman Care; Indian Rocks Woman’s Center; St. Petersburg Woman’s Health Center; Tampa Woman’s Health Center; A Woman’s Choice of Jacksonville; and an individual physician plaintiff.
An overview of the case and the complaint can be found here.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
'We Will Not Accept This Intimidation,' Mamdani Says of Trump Threat to Arrest Him
"That Trump included praise for Eric Adams in his authoritarian threats is unsurprising, but highlights the urgency of bringing an end to this mayor's time in City Hall," said the New York City mayoral candidate.
Jul 01, 2025
Democratic New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani made clear on Tuesday that he would not be intimidated by Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's threat to arrest him.
A journalist who falsely described Mamdani—a democratic socialist—as a "communist" asked Trump about the candidate's pledge not to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), whose agents are working to carry out the president's promised mass deportations.
"Well then, we'll have to arrest him," said Trump, a former New Yorker who has taken aim at Mamdani since his victory in last Tuesday's Democratic primary. "Look, we don't need a communist in this country."
Mamdani, who currently serves in the New York State Assembly, was born in Uganda to Indian parents and moved to NYC as a child. He was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2018. Throughout his campaign, the 33-year-old has faced numerous Islamophobic attacks, and after his primary win, Congressman Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) urged the Trump administration to target him with "denaturalization proceedings," in line with a broader effort at the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Trump said Tuesday that his administration would be watching Mamdani "very carefully." The president, a well-documented liar, added that "a lot of people are saying he's here illegally—you know, we're gonna look at everything... and ideally he's gonna turn out to be much less than a communist, but right now he's a communist, that's not a socialist."
Trump also blasted Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a supporter of Mamdani, and praised the city's current mayor, Eric Adams, who is seeking another term as an Independent. After Trump returned to office in January, the DOJ instructed prosecutors to drop federal corruption charges against Adams, triggering widespread outrage over the attempted "illegal quid pro quo," as some critics called it.
Responding to Trump's remarks in a lengthy statement, Mamdani said Tuesday that "the president of the United States just threatened to have me arrested, stripped of my citizenship, put in a detention camp, and deported. Not because I have broken any law, but because I will refuse to let ICE terrorize our city."
"His statements don't just represent an attack on our democracy but an attempt to send a message to every New Yorker who refuses to hide in the shadows: If you speak up, they will come for you," Mamdani continued. "We will not accept this intimidation."
"That Trump included praise for Eric Adams in his authoritarian threats is unsurprising, but highlights the urgency of bringing an end to this mayor's time in City Hall," he asserted, directing attention to the GOP budget bill advanced by the U.S. Senate on Tuesday.
Mamdani said that "at this very moment, when MAGA Republicans are attempting to destroy the social safety net, kick millions of New Yorkers off of healthcare, and enrich their billionaire donors at the expense of working families, it is a scandal that Eric Adams echoes this president's division, distraction, and hatred. Voters will resoundingly reject it in November."
In addition to Mamdani and Adams, the general election candidates are Republican Curtis Sliwa, Independent Jim Walden, and disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is now running as an Independent after losing the Democratic primary. According to results released Tuesday, Mamdani got 56% of the vote compared to Cuomo's 44%.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senators Demand Answers About 'Reckless' Trump Admin Use of AI Social Security Chatbot
Artificial intelligence systems, the four senators argue, "represent a troubling pattern that if continued, would significantly impede Americans' ability" to access their benefits.
Jul 01, 2025
Four U.S. senators—three Democrats and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders—demanded answers Tuesday from the Trump administration about its "reckless rollout" of artificial intelligence chatbot technology into phone systems "that have blocked people from accessing their earned Social Security benefits."
"These AI programs, which the agency deployed with little consultation with Congress, advocates, or other key stakeholders, appear to have been developed in haste and represent a troubling pattern that if continued, would significantly impede Americans' ability to access their Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits," the senators said in a letter to Social Security Administration (SSA) Commissioner Frank Bisignano.
While Sanders, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (Ore.), and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) acknowledged that "AI can be a helpful tool to simplify some workloads," they contended that artificial intelligence "is not a panacea for all challenges facing SSA."
The letter continues:
SSA is entrusted with ensuring accurate and timely payment of mtore than $1 trillion in Social Security and SSI benefit payments to over 73 million seniors, individuals with disabilities, and their families each year. Considering the agency's important mission, it is critical that SSA is responsibly deploying any technology system, including AI. For example, whether incorporating newer technology like generative AI to improve customer experience and increase efficiency or leveraging predictive AI to provide disability examiners support in the disability determination process, it is critical that SSA meaningfully engage stakeholders, including its customers and employees, the advocacy community, and members of Congress, throughout the entire process to avoid harm to claimants and beneficiaries.
"The agency's hasty AI rollouts on its national 1-800 number phone system and the phone system for its 1,200 field offices, which resulted in significant impediments for Americans simply trying to access their earned benefits, demonstrate our concern," the senators wrote. "In April, SSA announced it would be deploying an anti-fraud AI algorithm to verify the identity of callers seeking to file for benefits on its national 1-800 number, arguing—without providing any evidence—that its telephone service was rife with fraud."
"However," the lawmakers noted, "the proposal was scrapped shortly after implementation after the system found it identified two claims out of over 110,000 as potentially fraudulent. Moreover, the new program slowed claim processing by 25% and led to a 'degradation of public service.'"
The senators are asking Bisignano to:
- Provide a detailed description of the new AI-based chatbot, including how it determines whether it has successfully answered a caller's questions before hanging up;
- Describe which metrics is SSA using to determine whether this AI-based chatbot is successful at improving service delivery at the national 1-800 number;
- Explain the metrics SSA used to evaluate the successes or challenges of this AI-based chatbot before rolling it out nationwide to field offices;
- Disclose which stakeholders, especially those who represent beneficiaries and employees, were consulted pre- and post-deployment of this AI-based chatbot;
- Explain whether SSA is planning to procure, develop, or implement any new AI systems this year; and
- If the answer to the above question is yes, list and provide a detailed description of these AI systems.
The AI rollout is part of Bisignano's "technology agenda" to boost productivity at SSA amid staffing and other cuts implemented by the Trump administration and its Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. In February, SSA announced its intent to fire 7,000 workers, or about 12% of its historically low staff.
Many SSA staffers also resigned, including nearly half of the agency's senior executives. This has adversely affected SSA beneficiaries. An analysis published last week by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities revealed that one SSA staff member must now serve 1,480 beneficiaries—over three times as many as in 1967.
Last week, Warren sent a letter to Bisignano—who one advocacy group described as "a Wall Street CEO with a long history of slashing the companies he runs to the bone"—accusing him of misleading the public about longer beneficiary wait times resulting from the Trump administration and DOGE taking a "chainsaw to Social Security."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House to Take Up GOP Megabill Serving 'Oil Company CEOs, Hedge Fund Donors, and Climate Deniers'
"Senate Republicans advanced the most anti-environment, anti-job, and anti-American bill in history," said one campaigner.
Jul 01, 2025
After U.S. Senate Republicans on Tuesday sent President Donald Trump's so-called "Big Beautiful Bill" back to the House of Representatives, defenders of the planet sounded the alarm on several provisions that remain in the massive budget reconciliation package.
"This is a vote that will live in infamy," said Greenpeace USA deputy climate program director John Noël after Vice President JD Vance broke a tie to advance the legislation. "This bill is what happens when a major political party, in the grips of a personality cult, teams up with oil company CEOs, hedge fund donors, and climate deniers. All you need to do is look at who benefits from actively undercutting the clean energy industry that is creating tens of thousands of jobs across political geographies."
"The megabill isn't about reform—it's about rewarding the superrich and doling out fossil fuel industry handouts, all while dismantling the social safety nets on which millions depend for stability," Noël added. "It is a bet against the future."
Although Sen. Mike Lee's (R-Utah) provision to force the sale of public lands as well as a proposed excise tax on wind and solar projects were removed, other controversial policies survived, including required onshore and offshore fossil fuel lease sales, mandates for timber harvesting, the recision of various Inflation Reduction Act funding, an end to a moratorium on new coal leasing, and attacks on clean energy.
"Make no mistake, while the Senate did not include a punitive new excise tax on wind and solar projects, the bill is still devastating for the clean energy transition," warned Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) president Gretchen Goldman. "The bill would spike energy costs, threaten energy reliability, and strand hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy and transportation investments along with the tens of thousands of domestic jobs that come with them. The provisions attacking clean energy and clean transportation are not about the budget, but rather Congress using the budget bill to boost fossil fuels by crushing these booming new industries."
Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous declared that "today, Senate Republicans advanced the most anti-environment, anti-job, and anti-American bill in history."
"This shortsighted plan will put lives at risk, endanger our growing economy, and raise electricity rates on families and small businesses," he said. "The proposal expands drilling on public lands and in the Arctic, guts cost-cutting clean energy investments and the thousands of stable jobs they've created, and includes massive giveaways to corporate polluters and the very wealthiest Americans."
Jealous celebrated that public outrage led to the federal land sales and excise tax provisions getting axed, but added that "even with those important changes, a terrible bill is still a terrible bill, and this proposal fails the American people in every measure."
Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign, also highlighted how the legislation—if signed into law—will benefit rich individuals and corporations while causing working-class Americans to lose their jobs and pay higher energy bills.
"The Senate has turned its back on our clean energy future, raising our utility bills while mortgaging our health and environment to deliver massive tax breaks for billionaires," Alt said. She warned of job losses and increased climate pollution, meaning "kids will struggle with asthma and other respiratory problems. And, more people will suffer from devastating extreme weather catastrophes."
Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, similarly said that "with spiking power demand and rising bills, we need more clean, affordable American energy, but Senate Republicans just voted to kill jobs and deliver the largest utility bill increase in U.S. history."
"Every senator who voted for this bill chose tax cuts for the wealthiest over the rest of our health, pocketbooks, public lands and waters, and a safe climate," Bapna argued. "This is like Robin Hood in reverse. The very rich will get richer and the rest of us will have to pay the price."
After 27 hours, Republicans passed their Big Ugly Bill—a catastrophic assault on health care, food, and climate.They chose Trump and billionaires over families and our future.This fight isn't over. Now it’s the House’s turn to stop it.We can't agonize—we must organize.
[image or embed]
— Senator Ed Markey (@markey.senate.gov) July 1, 2025 at 1:22 PM
The bill not only "will race us toward climate catastrophe" while giving tax breaks to the wealthy, said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog Public Citizen, it also "steals assistance from vulnerable Americans, the bill would supercharge Trump's barbaric mass deportation policy, and throw an extra $150 billion at Pentagon contractors."
"Any member of Congress with a conscience knows that this bill must not become law," she added. "It's time for the House to stand up to President Trump and vote against it."
The GOP-controlled House had already passed a version of the megabill before every Senate Republican but Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Rand Paul (Ky.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.) advanced the latest edition on Tuesday. Now, the lower chamber's leaders plan to take up the new version in hopes of sending it to Trump's desk by his July 4 deadline.
"House members got it wrong the first time but have another chance now to do their jobs," said Goldman of UCS. "They must reject this bill, voting with their constituents in mind, not simply to avoid the ire of the president."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular