NC bills target state-funded anti-abortion clinics
Two bills in the North Carolina legislature aim to cut millions in state funding that's going toward crisis pregnancy centers, often described as anti-abortion clinics.
Why it matters: Over the past decade, taxpayer money going to crisis pregnancy centers in North Carolina has surged from $300,000 a year to more than $12 million, an investigation by The Assembly found.
These clinics are often criticized for sharing misleading information, being exempt from privacy rules and lacking government oversight.
Context: Crisis pregnancy centers are known to use targeted advertising, like offering free ultrasounds online, to draw in pregnant women considering abortion. Many patients have recounted experiences where staff asked about religion and attempted to convince them to carry out their pregnancies by showing sonograms or using other guilt tactics.
The New York Times reported that one Charlotte clinic goes by three different names. One woman told The Times she was falsely told at the clinic that she was beyond the legal limit for an abortion when she was still eligible for the abortion pill.
The Senate bill, if passed, would reroute the money sent to crisis pregnancy centers to organizations helping pregnant women in crisis instead.
For example, Rep. Sophia Chitlik says Durham organization Equity Before Birth would be an ideal candidate for the redirected funding. The organization supports pregnant women with cash payments for work leave, doula care, diapers and clothing.
The money could also go toward Department of Health and Human Services programs or extending postpartum Medicaid coverage.
"If they want to force people to have children, then they should not be supporting entities that are not giving them sound medical advice," Rep. Natalie Murdock says.
The Senate bill also calls for a state audit of Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship, the umbrella organization overseeing many crisis pregnancy centers. Democrats argue this would align with Republicans' growing focus on government efficiency. "If these are high-performing centers, I challenge folks to prove it," Chitlik says.
The House bill would empower the state attorney general to investigate complaints of deceptive practices, such as a center presenting itself as if it provides abortions and emergency contraception when it does not.
Yes, but: One of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Julie von Haefen, expects the legislation to "just end up in the trash pile." Over the years, the Wake County representative has filed multiple bills regarding crisis pregnancy centers and budget amendments to redirect funding, to no avail.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A New Working-Class GOP? If 'Working-Class' Means $4.3 Million a Year!
So much for a new, 'populist' Republican Party. So much for the GOP as a brave band of fiscally prudent, anti-deficit hawks. The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy, policy incoherence, and political vacuousness. That's its formal name, by the way, and you've already admitted a problem when you have to sell something that hard. It's no wonder that the only way the BBB passed the House was for one opponent to vote 'present' and for two others to miss the vote. One of the absent members fell asleep and missed the vote, an entirely appropriate response to an exercise in philosophical exhaustion. Defending the bill requires twisting facts into the 'alternative' variety and turning the plain meaning of words upside down. For example: The right wingers who demanded more cuts in programs for low-income people are regularly described as 'deficit hawks.' But even if they had gotten all the changes they sought, the bill would have massively increased the deficit. And most of them voted for a final product that will add close to $4 trillion to the nation's indebtedness. If these guys are hawks, I don't know what a dove looks like. Trump and his backers continue to insist that they are building a new working-class Republican coalition. But the astonishing thing about this bill is not only that it lavishes tax cuts on the very well-off; it also takes money away from Americans earning less than $51,000 a year once its cuts in Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, SNAP, and student loans are counted for. Republicans who rail against 'income redistribution' are doing an awful lot of redistribution themselves—to those who already have lots of money. The Penn Wharton budget model of the near-final version of the bill found that Americans earning less than $17,000 would lose $1,035 under its terms. Those earning between $17,000 and $50,999 would lose $705. But the small number of our fellow citizens who earn more than $4.3 million a year have a lot to cheer about: They pick up $389,280 annually. Please explain to me again why this is a 'populist' Republican Party. It's imperative not to miss what's obvious about this bill—that it ravages lower-income people to benefit the very privileged—and for progressives and Democrats to act on this. But it's also essential to notice what doesn't get enough attention: that so much of the commentary about how Trump has reinvented the GOP with a fresh set of ideas and commitments is poppycock. Trumpism is certainly dangerous and authoritarian in new ways. It is, well, innovative when it comes to a vast and unconstitutional expansion of presidential power. But it's also an ideological mess riddled with contradictions. When you look below the hood, it's primarily about the interests of people who can buy their way into Trump's golf clubs and private pay-for-play dinners—and, especially, about the enrichment of Trump and his family. On the phony populism side, Democrats in the House did a generally good job of highlighting the costs of provisions in the bill that hurt so many of Trump's voters, particularly the cuts in Medicaid and nutrition assistance, or SNAP. Senate Democrats have already ramped up similar efforts as that body's Republican leaders prepare to grapple with the steaming pile of incongruities the House has sent their way. You can tell that Republicans know how unpopular the Medicaid cuts in the bill are because they delayed their effectiveness date to minimize their electoral effect, repeatedly denied they are cutting Medicaid—and don't want to talk at all about how slashing subsidies within the Affordable Care Act would take health coverage away from millions more Americans. They are hiding the Medicaid cuts behind 'work requirements' that are really bureaucratic paperwork requirements that would make it much harder for people with every right to coverage to access it. They would make it more difficult for others to maintain continuous coverage. And if these rules were not about 'cutting' Medicaid, the GOP couldn't claim to be 'cutting' roughly $700 billion in Medicaid spending. But the GOP thinks it has a winner in its work argument. It's a tired but tested replay of a very old (and, yes, offensive) trope about alleged grifters among supposedly 'lazy' poor people. House Speaker Mike Johnson offered a remarkable version of this defense of the 'work' provisions: He said they were aimed at 'the young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day.' If ever there was a quote that should go viral, this is it. Young men, after all, shifted toward the Republicans in 2024. They should know what the party many of them voted for thinks of them. More important, progressives need to take the work argument on directly, not only by showing that the work provisions aren't really about work but also by offering amendments replacing the Medicaid cuts with provisions that actually would expand the availability of well-paying opportunities for greater self-sufficiency. Restoring the clean energy tax credits are important not only to battling climate change; they're also about preserving and creating well-paying jobs. A package of proposals on affordable housing, job training, and access to community colleges, particularly in economically depressed areas, would make a nice contrast to those who deny that government has the capacity to improve lives. What the Financial Times' economics columnist Martin Wolf nicely termed 'pluto-populism' when the GOP passed the 2017 tax cuts that this bill extends is alive and well. That populist rhetoric is being married to plutocratic policies is still not recognized widely enough. This is certainly a commentary on the rightward tilt of the media system the editor of this magazine has called out. But it also reflects a failure of Democrats to take the argument to the heart of Trump's base. It's political common sense that parties focus most of their energy on swing states and swing districts. Yet there will be no breaking the 50-50 deadlock in our politics without a concerted effort to change the minds of voters who have drifted to Trump out of frustration with their own economic circumstances and the condition of their regions. The fight over Medicaid and SNAP cuts directly implicates these voters and these places. And these voters pay more attention to these issues than either the Republicans who take them for granted or Democrats who have given up on them believe. When Andy Beshear won his first race for governor of Kentucky in 2019, he not only mobilized Democrats in urban areas; he also flipped many rural counties and cut the Republicans' margins in others. Typical was Carter County in eastern Kentucky. The county went for Beshear even though it had backed his GOP opponent and then-incumbent Republican Governor Matt Bevin four years earlier and gave Trump 73.8 percent of its ballots in 2016. Breathitt County in Appalachia also flipped, having gone for Bevin and voted 69.6 percent for Trump. Fred Cowan, a former Kentucky attorney general and a shrewd student of his state's politics, told me then that these voters understood where their interests lay. 'In a lot of these counties, the school systems or the hospitals—or both—are the biggest employers,' he said 'The Medicaid expansion helped a lot of people over there.' Sure, it's easier for Democrats like Beshear with strong local profiles to make their case. But the national party needs to learn from these politicians that giving up on whole swaths of voters is both an electoral and moral mistake. The emptiness of Republican populism speaks to the larger problem of mistaking Trump's ability to create a somewhat new electoral coalition with intellectual and policy innovation. Some conservative commentators are honest enough to admit how the BBB demonstrates that the 'old Republican Party is still powerful, the old ideas are still dominant,' as Ross Douthat observed in The New York Times. But even Douthat wants to cast the bill as an exception to a bolder transformation the president has engineered, particularly around immigration and a 'Trumpian culture war.' The problem here is that none of this is new, either. The GOP was moving right on immigration well before Trump—when, for example, it killed George W. Bush's immigration bill in 2007 as right-wing media cheered it on. The culture war and the battle against universities are old hat too. The real innovator here was the late Irving Kristol, whose columns in the 1970s introduced Wall Street Journal readers to the dangers posed to business interests by 'the new class' of Hollywood, media, and university types, along with activist lawyers. True, Trump is taking this fight to extreme places Kristol would never have gone. But, again, there's no new thinking here. And the attack on trans rights is just the latest front in the LGBTQ+ debates, now that the right has had to abandon its opposition to same-sex marriage because Americans have come to support it overwhelmingly. Even the contradictions aren't new. Since the Reagan years, Republicans have always talked about the dangers of deficits when Democrats were in power but cast those worries aside when they had the power to cut taxes. 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter' is the canonical Dick Cheney quote from 2002 when he was pushing for more tax cuts in W.'s administration. The exception proves the rule: George H.W. Bush made a deal with Democrats in 1991 that included tax increases because he really did care about deficits—and conservatives never forgave him for it. In an odd way, you have to admire Cheney's candor: At least he admitted what he was doing. The Freedom Caucus members have the gall to yell at the top of their lungs about how they care so very much about the debt—and then vote in overwhelming numbers to pile on billions more. As the debate over the BBB moves to the Senate, the immediate imperative is to expose the damage the bill does to millions of Trump's voters to benefit his Mar-a-Lago and crypto-wealthy friends. But it's also an occasion to shatter the illusion that Trump is some sort of brilliant policy innovator. Extremism and authoritarianism are not new ideas, and his legislative program would be familiar to Calvin Coolidge.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
SNAP cost-sharing jeopardizes food assistance program
Indiana could be on the hook for as much as $360 million a year in SNAP costs. (Getty Images) Most people are talking about work requirements for federal assistance like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). But it's another provision that could have a much bigger impact. More than 600,000 Hoosiers received $1.44 billion in financial assistance to buy food in fiscal year 2024, mostly families with children who can't make ends meet. That cost-sharing language for the federal program threatens to break Indiana's budget or take out the program altogether. A key provision in the federal reconciliation bill that passed the U.S. House and now is being vetted in the Senate would require states to have skin in the game for SNAP. Right now, the benefits are 100% covered by the federal government with the state picking up half of the administrative costs. But the proposal would require some states to cover as much as 25% of the benefits cost starting in 2028, depending on each state's error rate. States with the highest error rates would pay more as a 'state quality control incentive' to crack down on fraud and abuse. The seven states with error rates below 6% would only need to cover 5% of the tab under the current version of the bill. But Indiana's 10.5% error rate puts it into the highest tier for a match rate — even though it falls below the national average rate of 11.68%. That means Indiana could be on the hook for as much as $360 million a year. Coming off a budget session where state lawmakers had to cut higher education funding, child care aid and economic development programs, any new fiscal obligation will be a burden. But $360 million would be near impossible. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost-sharing component will save the federal government a little under $100 billion. 'CBO expects that some states would maintain current benefits and eligibility and others would modify benefits or eligibility or possibly leave the program altogether because of the increased costs,' the analysis found. Gov. Mike Braun's administration didn't provide a comment on the possible ramifications. It's important to remember the hungry Hoosiers at the heart of this debate. Despite the error rate — which includes underpayments as well as overpayments — most are desperate families in need of additional assistance to put food on the table. USDA research from fiscal year 2023 showed Indiana is among the lowest states in the percent of population receiving SNAP – between 8 and 10%. In comparison, six states and Washington D.C. were above 16% and all of Indiana's neighbors rank higher. To be eligible, you must have a monthly net income of less than $1,255 for a family of one; $1,704 for a couple and $2,600 for a family of four. That means if you live alone and make over $300 a week you are ineligible for SNAP. The amount you receive depends on your income but the average monthly payment per participant in April 2025 was $196. That is down slightly from April 2024. Indiana's enrollment went up during the pandemic when additional emergency aid was available. But generally, it has been stable and ranks about mid-pack nationally. For instance, in April 2025 281,112 households or 588,184 individuals. Those numbers are a few percentage points lower than April 2024 and slightly down from Fiscal Year 2023. Other changes being considered nationally include imposing work requirements on those receiving benefits. And some states, like Indiana, will ban using the benefits on candy and pop. I generally don't have a problem with those proposals. But the cost-sharing provision will undoubtedly take food from hungry adults and children, and I hope the U.S. Senate re-evaluates the pain it could cause. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bipartisan event highlights Michigan's legislative divides, instead
MACKINAC ISLAND — In a new era of divided government, state lawmakers face a binary choice between bipartisan cooperation and gridlock. When they convened for the Detroit Regional Chamber's annual policy conference in the Straits of Mackinac, where two Great Lakes meet, they remained at loggerheads. Unlike past conferences in which legislative leaders have sometimes joined the governor for a big bipartisan policy announcement, that didn't happen this year. House Minority Leader Ranjeev Puri, D-Canton Township, described the current legislative session as uniquely unproductive. "I'm disappointed with the lack of progress," he said. Republicans control the Michigan House and Democrats hold a majority in the Michigan Senate. "You think that would be an ideal situation to find common ground," said Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids. Legislative leaders pointed fingers at each other for inaction. Puri blasted Richland Township Republican House Speaker Matt Hall's leadership style. "It's an unserious approach that's going to lead to dangerous consequences," Puri said. Hall said Michigan voters can blame Democrats for a Mackinac Policy Conference that didn't feature a bipartisan bill signing ceremony on the island. The Democratic-led legislative session that came to an end last year has continued to hover over the current one, fueling tensions between the top Republican and Democratic leaders in Lansing. Bills that passed both chambers last session never made their way to Whitmer's desk, prompting the Michigan Senate to sue Hall for refusing to transmit the legislation. Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt, R-Porter Township, called it an unfortunate start to the year. Brinks said she and Hall have had informal and infrequent conversations, adding that her continued invitations to sit down have gone unanswered. "It shouldn't be that way," she said. "It's absolutely a problem." Hall has defended his leadership approach during news conferences, touting policies in which House lawmakers from both parties have come together to support in one breath and singling out some Democratic lawmakers for criticism in another. During a Mackinac Policy Conference panel featuring all four legislative leaders May 29, Hall didn't take Brinks or Puri up on their personal pleas to meet. At one point, Puri held up his phone in front of the audience, saying he had his calendar pulled up to put a date to meet on the calendar. Hall told Puri he didn't need to, saying he's worked effectively with other Democratic lawmakers. Hall also said he has set an example for bipartisanship with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, citing their Oval Office visit with President Donald Trump that preceded the announcement of a new fighter jet mission for Selfridge Air National Guard Base. Whitmer declined a request for an interview with the Detroit Free Press during the conference. But in her speeches, she emphasized her commitment to cooperating across the aisle. "This isn't a platitude. This is a philosophy," she said. Whitmer has long preached bipartisanship, but she faces a new dynamic in Lansing. For the first time during her tenure as governor, one political party controls one chamber of the Michigan Legislature and the opposite party controls the other. So far, lawmakers have sent four bills since this session began January to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's desk for her signature: Changes to Michigan's minimum wage and paid sick leave laws and a pair of bills that adjusts the deadline for politicians and candidates to file their personal financial disclosures following hiccups with the online reporting system. Whitmer's governing approach isn't the only thing on the line, so is her marquee campaign promise to "fix the damn roads" if lawmakers reach a stalemate on road funding. But she suggested lawmakers may be close to an agreement. "We're inching closer to a deal," she said. Mackinac Policy Conference: Mike Duggan, Dan Gilbert chat about downtown Detroit and what Bill Clinton saw in 1991 The Michigan House passed a road funding plan in March that would depend on steep cuts, which Puri characterized as an austerity plan packaged as a road funding solution. Brinks has previously described it as a nonstarter. Hall has blasted Senate Democrats for not putting forward a road funding plan of their own. Brinks says Hall won't come to the table to negotiate. While lawmakers may leave potholes unfilled, they face another high-stakes test for bipartisanship during budget negotiations. The Michigan House hasn't passed a budget proposal yet, and Hall hasn't committed to passing one out of the chamber by July 1, the deadline lawmakers — including Hall —imposed on themselves to help schools plan for the next year before students return to class. Contact Clara Hendrickson at chendrickson@ or 313-296-5743. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Michigan Democrats say they want House Speaker to negotiate
