US supreme court weighs restricting Medicaid payments to ‘defund' Planned Parenthood
In its first abortion-related case since Donald Trump retook control of the White House, the US supreme court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday morning in a case challenging South Carolina's attempt to effectively 'defund' Planned Parenthood because the reproductive health giant performs abortions.
The case, Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, deals with a 2018 executive order from the South Carolina governor Henry McMaster that blocked clinics that provide abortions from receiving reimbursements via Medicaid, the US government's healthcare program for low-income people, despite the fact that those reimbursements don't actually cover abortions. 'Payment of taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any purpose, results in the subsidy of abortion and the denial of the right to life,' McMaster said at the time.
However, federal law bans Medicaid from covering the vast majority of abortions, which only comprised about 4% of Planned Parenthood's activities in fiscal year 2022. Instead, people use Medicaid to cover Planned Parenthood's other services. In the same year, the organization performed nearly half a million Pap tests and breast exams as well as 4.6m STI tests and treatments. It also provided birth control services to more than 2.2 million people.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a Planned Parenthood affiliate that operates two clinics in South Carolina, teamed up with a patient who sought birth control, Julie Edwards, to sue over McMaster's order. Lower courts have since kept the order from going into effect.
If South Carolina wins, it could pave the way for other states to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs as well as devastate South Carolinians' ability to access reproductive healthcare and family planning services.
Of the 2.4 million people treated at Planned Parenthood nationwide each year, nearly half are on Medicaid. About four in 10 women who have sought care at family-planning clinics say those clinics are their only recent source of healthcare.
At the heart of the case is a federal provision that guarantees that people insured by Medicaid can freely choose their own providers as long as they accept the program and are qualified to provide care. The case hinges on a technical argument: South Carolina – which is being represented by the powerhouse Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom – says Medicaid beneficiaries have no right to sue if they believe that guarantee has been violated, in part because Congress never intended for beneficiaries to have that right.
But that argument, legal experts warn, conceals the broader consequences of the case. If organizations like Planned Parenthood can't sue when they believe that a state is violating Medicaid, then it will become far more difficult to keep states from discriminating against certain kinds of care, said Nicole Huberfeld, a health law professor at Boston University's School of Public Health.
'Even though the state is trying to claim that it has sole authority to decide who's a qualified provider, this isn't really about whether Planned Parenthood is a qualified provider. It's about a political calculation on abortion,' Huberfeld said. 'Really, what's happening here is states making politically driven decisions about access to medical care.'
More than 1 million people in South Carolina use Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (Chip) – which is closely linked to Medicaid – for their insurance. Almost 40% of South Carolina counties are believed to be 'contraceptive deserts', where there are not enough providers to meet the needs of the people who live there. South Carolina bans abortion past six weeks of pregnancy.
Because Texas terminated Planned Parenthood from its state Medicaid program in 2021, it offers a window into what happens when people lose access to Planned Parenthood. The termination affected the healthcare of some 8,000 Texans.
'Planned Parenthood, we heard again and again, was a medical home for people with very few options for providers,' said Anna Chatillon, a research scientist at Resound Research for Reproductive Health, who led a study that interviewed Texans about how the termination affected their lives. 'In several different interviews, we heard people talking about showing up for an appointment, finding out that they couldn't use Medicaid any longer, not having any idea where else to go, and experiencing real disruptions to their care based on that very quickly, but also serious emotional ramifications.'
The case is part of a broader, longstanding anti-abortion campaign against Planned Parenthood, which includes an ongoing lawsuit that could bankrupt the organization over allegations that it defrauded Medicaid.
On Tuesday, Planned Parenthood announced that the Trump administration – which is set to help South Carolina make its case in oral arguments – had notified nine of its affiliates that they would lose funding from Title X, the nation's oldest and largest family-planning program. Politico reported the funds were being withheld as punishment for the organization's diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
12 hours ago
- The Independent
The cost of staying alive could become a lot more expensive for millions of Americans because of Trump drug tariffs
Americans would likely pay more for necessary everyday prescription drugs, such as insulin, painkillers, chemotherapy, or antibiotics, if President Donald Trump were to enact tariffs on pharmaceuticals, experts warn. In an effort to incentivize drug manufacturers to bring production back to the United States, Trump has proposed tariffing pharmaceuticals made overseas – which account for an overwhelming majority of everyday medicine used in the U.S. 'We're going to be doing that,' Trump said of pharmaceutical tariffs in April. 'That's going to be like we have on cars. You know we have a 25 percent tariff on cars, we have a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum, and that's what the [pharmaceutical] category fits right now.' 'The higher the tariff, the faster they come,' Trump said. But experts say that's not necessarily true and there would be tangible consequences to such action, from higher brand-name drug prices to generic drug shortages. 'If tariffs were applied to prescription drugs, one of the most immediate consequences could be price increases — on prices that we already pay way in excess of other countries,' Dr. Mariana Socal, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said. The U.S. imports a majority of its branded prescription drugs – or medications that are patented with a brand name such as Viagra, Wegovy, or Zoloft – from high-income countries. Dr. Jeromie Ballreich, an associated research professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said much of the manufacturing comes from Ireland, Germany, and Switzerland because they have favorable tax policies for companies. As a result, adding a tariff would only make it more expensive for pharmacies and insurance companies to keep them in supply. 'We would expect pharma to pass the costs onto the insurers and we would expect insurers to pass the cost onto the individual patients,' Ballreich said. 'So, if there is a 50 percent tariff on your insulin product because it's coming from Ireland, patients in Mississippi who get insulin – they will either be faced with a higher cost when they go up to the pharmacy to fill their insulin or they're going to face a higher indirect cost because the premiums of the insurance plan are going to go up,' he said. Ballreich said a tariff on countries that produce high quantities of branded drugs would put 'pressure' on public insurers like Medicare or Medicaid and private insurers. However, branded drugs only account for roughly 10 to 15 percent of prescriptions. A majority of Americans, up to 90 percent, use generic drugs, often manufactured in India and China, because they're cheaper. Making branded drugs less accessible through tariffs would only increase reliance on generic drugs, which could exacerbate shortages that already impact millions of Americans. Generic drugs would become less available '[Shortages] can have very significant implications in day-to-day clinical practice,' Socal said. 'For example, if you are administering chemotherapy for an oncology patient, that may have significant consequences even for the prognosis of that case moving forward.' In 2024, the U.S. experienced a shortage of more than 300 drugs – 70 percent of which were generic prescriptions. Socal said that when patients are not able to access a more affordable version of their prescription, it means they may put their health at risk by skipping a dosage, taking a lower dosage, or not filling their prescription at all. Otherwise, they're forced to turn to the more expensive branded version. 'Those more expensive drugs are not always the best,' Socal said. 'Very frequently, and we saw this with chemotherapy shortages, the available drugs are second-line drugs.' Tariffs won't necessarily increase domestic manufacturing The president has indicated that any negative impact from tariffs may be temporary and worth it to bring manufacturing and jobs back. 'We're doing it because we want to make our own drugs,' Trump said. But Ballreich and Socal are more skeptical. 'Tariffs are a very blunt instrument to incentivize domestic U.S. manufacturing of the branded drugs we use,' Ballreich said. Given pharmaceutical companies have moved outside of the U.S. for tax purposes, Ballreich says tax policy may be a better way to incentivize them, especially since many of those drugs are more difficult to manufacture. 'It's not just a very simple chemical plant; these tend to be very complex,' he said. Socal suggested a better strategy would be to understand where drugs are being manufactured and which ones would make more sense to bring to the U.S. — since even those manufactured locally often rely on certain imported ingredients and materials. 'Having tariffs on pharmaceutical products coming from abroad can actually also hurt our domestic manufacturers,' he says. While the president has not officially implemented any tariff policy on pharmaceuticals yet, he said, in April, that the plan would take effect in the 'not too distant future.'
Metro
a day ago
- Metro
Urgent recall for vitamin gummies over 'life-threatening health risk'
Vitamin gummies have been recalled across the US because they may contain an undeclared allergen – peanuts. Vita Warehouse Corp is recalling a lot of its Welby brand Vitamin B12 Energy Support gummy product 1000 mcg gummies, Berkely Jensen Vitamin B12 1000 mcg Gummies, and VitaGlobe Vitamin B12 Extra Strength Gummies. 'People with an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the potential risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume these products,' states an advisory published by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday. The Webly vitamins came with 140 gummies in a clear bottle with a white cap and a green, red and white label. They have an expiration date of October 2026, the UPC code 4099100290868 and the lot number 248046601 printed at the bottom. Berkley Jensen vitamins under the recall came with 250 gummies in a clear bottle with a white cap and red and pink labels. They have an expiration date of October 2026, the UPC code 888670132487 and the lot number 248046601. The VitaGlobe vitamins came with 60 gummies in a clear bottle with a white cap and green, red and white labels. They have the same expiration date as the other two brands, the UPC code 850005214670 and the lot number 248046601. They were sent to ALDI and BJ's stores nationwide. There have not been any allergic reactions or illnesses linked to the vitamins that have been reported. More Trending Anyone who experiences an allergic reaction should see a doctor right away. Customers who are allergic to peanuts should throw them away immediately or return them for a full refund. 'Vita Warehouse Corp is committed to maintaining the highest product safety and quality standards,' states the FDA notice. It comes a week after Aldi recalled its Casa Mamita Churro Bites Filled with Chocolate Hazelnut Cream because they were found to have an undeclared allergen, milk, that could cause 'a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction'. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Man 'urinates on $10,000 worth of Spam and sausages forcing them to be tossed' MORE: Everything to know about Donald Trump's military parade on his 79th birthday MORE: Lawmaker forcefully removed from Trump secretary's LA protests conference and handcuffed
The Independent
a day ago
- The Independent
RFK Jr team forced Medicaid officials to reveal the immigration status on millions of enrollees to DHS: report
The Trump administration has handed over the personal data of immigrant Medicaid enrollees to deportation officials, the Associated Press reports. Included in the data are the immigration statuses of millions of Medicaid enrollees, which could be used to i dentify individuals for deportation as part of President Donald Trump 's hard-line immigration crackdown. This has caused notable concern among officials in California due to the raids in Los Angeles by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, supported by troops, which have ignited protests and civil unrest. An internal memo and emails obtained by the AP show that Medicaid officials unsuccessfully attempted to block the data transfer, citing legal and ethical concerns. They were overruled by two top advisers to Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr., who ordered that the dataset be handed over to the Department of Homeland Security, the emails reveal. The data consists of the details of people living in California, Illinois, Washington State, and Washington, D.C., all so-called 'sanctuary states' that permit non-U.S. citizens to enroll in Medicaid programs funded solely by state taxpayer dollars. California Governor Gavin Newsom 's office expressed concern that the data would be used for immigration raids supported by the National Guard troops and Marines that President Trump deployed in Los Angeles. 'We deeply value the privacy of all Californians,' a statement said. 'This potential data transfer brought to our attention by the AP is extremely concerning, and if true, potentially unlawful, particularly given numerous headlines highlighting potential improper federal use of personal information and federal actions to target the personal information of Americans.' Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon said the data was shared legally, 'to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them.' The data includes addresses, names, Social Security numbers and claims data for enrollees in those states, the AP reported, based on details of the memo and two people familiar with what the states sent to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Officials at CMS were given just 54 minutes on Tuesday to comply with the RFK Jr. team's directive, the outlet reported. The AP states that Nixon wouldn't answer questions about how Homeland Security would use the data, and DHS officials did not respond to requests for comment.
