Planned parenthood funding faces axe after US Supreme Court bombshell ruling for states
Planned Parenthood
, from receiving Medicaid money for health services such as contraception and cancer screenings. The top court cleared the way for states to potentially cut off funding for Planned Parenthood, one of the country's largest abortion providers.
The 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch was not directly about abortion, but it comes as a victory to Republicans seeking to defund the nation's largest abortion provider. Planned Parenthood is already barred from receiving federal money for abortion care. But this ruling, where three liberal justices on the top court dissented, would also allow states to cut off reimbursements for other medical services it provides to low-income Americans under the Medicaid program.
"Section 1983 permits private plaintiffs to sue for violations of federal spending-power statutes only in 'atypical' situations … where the provision in question 'clear[ly]' and 'unambiguous[ly]' confers an individual 'right,'" Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion, ruling that the law in question in the present case "is not such a statute."
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Cara Membantu Orang Terkasih Menghadapi Limfoma
Limfoma
Pelajari
Undo
ALSO READ:
Elon Musk's right-hand man quits: Who Is Tesla power player Omead Afshar?
States allowed to remove planned parenthood
The case stems from an executive order issued by South Carolina's Republican governor Henry McMaster in 2018 cutting off
Medicaid funding
to the two Planned Parenthood clinics in the state. The decision centers on a South Carolina case involving non-abortion services such as contraception, cancer screenings, and pregnancy testing.
Live Events
Republican leaders in South Carolina have objected to Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions.
Public health care money generally can't be used to pay for abortions, but Medicaid patients go to Planned Parenthood for other needs in part because it can be tough to find a doctor who takes the publicly funded insurance, the organization has said.
ALSO READ:
DOGE's shock exit: Who is 'Big Balls', the 19 year-old ex-Neuralink prodigy to resign from Elon Musk's team?
South Carolina's Republican governor says no taxpayer money should go the organization. The budget bill backed by President Donald Trump in Congress would also cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. That could force the closure of about 200 centers, most of them in states where abortion is legal, the organization has said.
In 2018, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, a Republican, moved to cut off the organization's funding, arguing that no taxpayer dollars should go to Planned Parenthood. That action was initially blocked by a lawsuit from Julie Edwards, a patient who relies on the clinic for birth control due to a high-risk medical condition.
The case also tested whether Medicaid patients have the legal right to sue over the choice of providers. While public health groups such as the American Cancer Society argued in court that lawsuits are often the only tool Medicaid recipients have to enforce their rights, South Carolina contended that patients should not be allowed to file such suits. The court's decision siding with the state could restrict patients' ability to challenge funding decisions, particularly in rural areas with limited access to care.
ALSO READ:
Zohran Mamdani at risk of losing US citizenship? Shocking twist as New York's mayoral race heats up
Though Planned Parenthood receives only $90,000 annually in Medicaid funds from South Carolina—a small fraction of the state's total Medicaid budget—the ruling arrives as Congress considers a Trump-backed federal budget that would eliminate Medicaid funding to the group entirely.
According to the organization, such cuts could force the closure of roughly 200 clinics, many in states where abortion remains legal. South Carolina currently bans abortion at around six weeks of pregnancy, following the Supreme Court's 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
(With AP inputs)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
MP Mohan Delkar's death: Supreme Court upholds quashing of FIR against UT administrator Praful Patel, others
The Supreme Court Monday upheld a Bombay High Court order quashing the FIR against Dadra and Nagar Haveli administrator Praful Khoda Patel and others in connection with the death of MP Mohan Delkar on February 22, 2021. The bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, which heard the matter, said it was confirming the September 8, 2022, order of the high court and dismissing the appeal against it. The detailed order is awaited. Delkar, 58, a seven-term parliamentarian from Dadra and Nagar Haveli (DNH), was found dead in a room at a hotel in Mumbai's Marine Drive. On March 9, 2021, the police registered a First Information Report (FIR) on charges of abetment to suicide and other relevant provisions after Delkar's family members lodged a complaint on behalf of his son Abhinav. The complaint was filed against Patel, then DNH district collector Sandeep Kumar Singh, then superintendent of police Sharad Darade, then deputy collector Apurva Sharma, sub-divisional officer Manasvi Jain, police inspector (Silvassa) Manoj Patel, DNH administrative department official Rohit Yadav, political leader Fattesingh Chauhan, and then talathi of Silvassa Dilip Patel for allegedly having abetted the suicide by 'misusing their posts and powers and intentionally conspiring and planning against Delkar'. The FIR had alleged that the MP was under pressure for a year prior to his death and that the DNH administration was harassing him to gain control over his institute, SSR College of Pharmacy and Management, and prevented him from contesting further elections. In September 2022, however, the high court held, '…we find merit in petition and substance in submissions by petitioners and it is a fit case for the court to exercise its power under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to prevent an abuse of process of law. The FIR filed by Abhinav Delkar is thus quashed and set aside.' The accused were booked for offences punishable under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 306 (abetment to suicide), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 120B (criminal conspiracy), along with provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Hindu
13 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court stays HC order reversing discharge of T.N. Minister, family members in DA case
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 18, 2025) stayed a Madras High Court order of April 28 reversing the discharge of Rural Development Minister I. Periyasamy, his wife P. Suseela, and two sons P. Prabhu and P. Senthilkumar from a 2012 disproportionate assets case, and directed them to face trial. A Bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu on the petition filed by the Minister and his family members, represented by senior advocate V. Giri and advocate Ram Sankar, challenging the High Court's decision to set aside the order of discharge of the trial court in 2017. The Minister has argued that these cases were products of the political rivalry. He had referred to a similar disproportionate assets case registered against him and his family concerning tax returns for the period from 1996 to 2001. The trial court had discharged them in January 2017. The High Court and the Supreme Court had not interfered with the decision subsequently. The Minister said the present case was 'foisted' when rival political party, AIADMK, was in power in the State in 2012. The Minister and his family members were charge sheeted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for acquiring assets disproportionate with their income. 'His wife, and two sons are majors having independent incomes,' the petition submitted. 'The entire case of the prosecution is based on the income tax returns filed by the petitioner and his family members during the said period which were also scrutinised and accepted by the Income Tax department. It is pertinent to mention here that the prosecution, with a malafide intention, by duplication of calculation, had added the amount carry-forwarded in capital account as well as the assets acquired / balance shown in the bank account out of the capital account, thereby artificially and erroneously inflated the net income, contrary to the basic principles of accounting. It is not the case of the prosecution that any undisclosed property or money or goods found or recovered from the petitioner or his family,' it argued. The Court tagged the case with another petition filed by Mr. Periasamy. In that case, the apex court had on April 8, last year stayed the trial in a corruption case regarding the alleged allotment of a High Income Group plot in the Mogappair Eri scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The plot allotment had been made to C. Ganesan, who was the personal security officer to the then Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, in 2008-2009. Mr. Periyasamy was at the time the Minister for Housing in the then DMK government. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) had lodged the case against Mr. Periyasamy in February 2012 when DMK lost the elections to AIADMK. The DMK again formed the government in Tamil Nadu in 2021. Mr. Periyasamy became a Minister. Two years later, in March 2023, a Special Court trying corruption cases against lawmakers had discharged him in the case for want of proper sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, a Single Judge Bench of the Madras High Court of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh had taken suo motu cognisance of six cases of corruption. Mr. Periyasamy's case was the first one. The High Court had set aside the discharge order of the trial court and put the case back on trial. Mr. Periyasamy had challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to reopen the case when there was no sanction for prosecution given by the Governor under Section 197. The Minister had argued that trial cannot commence against him without prior sanction. Sanction for a valid prosecution of a sitting Cabinet Minister can only be given by the Governor, he had noted.
The Hindu
13 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Election Commission of India makes public names of 65 lakh people deleted from Bihar voter list during SIR
The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday (August 18, 2025) came out with the names of 65 lakh people who were removed from the draft electoral rolls published as part of the special intensive revision (SIR) exercise, officials said. The development came in the backdrop of the Supreme Court's direction that details of the deleted names be made public by August 19 and a compliance report be filed by August 22. The ECI is publishing the names of 'ASD' (Absentee, Shifted, and Dead) voters across polling booths, and is likely to do so online as has been directed by the apex court, they said. According to the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), Bihar, ASD lists have been displayed at polling booths in Rohtas, Begusarai, Arwal and other places.
