Planned Parenthood sues over Trump megabill ‘defunding' provision
Planned Parenthood said the law unconstitutionally eliminates patients' ability to use Medicaid as their insurance at any of its health centers nationwide.
'The prohibition specifically targets Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its member health care providers in order to punish them for lawful activity, namely advocating for and providing legal abortion access wholly outside the Medicaid program and without using any federal funds,' the organization wrote in the complaint.
Federal law has prohibited health care providers from using federal funds for abortions for more than 40 years.
'Thus, this statute must be doing something more — and it is. The Defund Provision is a naked attempt to leverage the government's spending power to attack and penalize Planned Parenthood and impermissibly single it out for unfavorable treatment,' the lawsuit stated.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts by Planned Parenthood Federation of America as well as state members Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah.
Republicans have been trying to pass legislation that blocks federal funding to Planned Parenthood for years, but the intricate rules of passing a party-line bill in the Senate meant the provisions have needed to pass muster with the Senate's parliamentarian.
To abide by those rules, the law imposed a one-year ban on state Medicaid payments to any health care nonprofit that offers abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal funding in 2023 — a list that's comprised almost entirely of Planned Parenthood.
The law will primarily affect Planned Parenthood clinics in blue states with large numbers of Medicaid beneficiaries where abortion is still legal. The organization said 200 clinics in 24 states were at risk of closing under the bill. Of those clinics, 90 percent are in states where abortion is protected and legal.
'This case is about making sure that patients who use Medicaid as their insurance to get birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment can continue to do so at their local Planned Parenthood health center, and we will make that clear in court,' Alexis McGill Johnson, the chief executive of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement.
The Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Laura Coates Uses Trump's Own Words to Shatter ‘Woke' Smithsonian Claims: ‘Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself, Mr. President'
In 2017, Trump called the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture a "beautiful tribute to so many American heroes" CNN's Laura Coates took issue Tuesday night with President Donald Trump's repeated claims that the Smithsonian Institute has gone 'out of control' with woke content and used some of his own words from 2017 to prove him wrong. Trump took to Truth Social Tuesday to announce that he has instructed his attorneys to review the Smithsonian's museums. More from TheWrap Laura Coates Uses Trump's Own Words to Shatter 'Woke' Smithsonian Claims: 'Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself, Mr. President' | Video Trump's White House Lashes Out at Rosie O'Donnell Again in Response to Mark Hamill's Near Emigration 'Morning Joe' Warns Rep. Elise Stefanik's Home District Boos Are a 'Terrible Sign' for Republicans | Video Shonda Rhimes Says Self-Censorship Is Palpable as Networks Cower to Trump 'The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been,' Trump wrote. 'This Country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE IS BROKE.' Among the museums that Trump has targeted is the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, which Coates was quick to point out Tuesday. The CNN anchor was also quick to note that, contrary to his recent claims, Trump had nothing but good things to say about the museum in question after he toured it in 2017. To prove her point, Coates played a clip of the speech Trump gave following his visit. 'This museum is a beautiful tribute to so many American heroes. It's amazing to see,' Trump said at the time. 'We did a pretty comprehensive tour, but not comprehensive enough. So, [Smithsonian Secretary] Lonnie [Bunch III] I'll be back. I told you that. Because I could stay here for a lot longer, believe me. It's really incredible. This tour was a meaningful reminder of why we have to fight bigotry, intolerance, and hatred in all of its very ugly forms.' You can watch the clip yourself in the video below. For her part, Coates took particular issue with Trump's insistence that the museums his administration is reviewing focus only on suffering and oppression. 'Yes, it goes into the unvarnished truth of slavery in America, the brutal reality that millions endured and the impact that's still felt today,' Coates acknowledge about the National Museum of African American History and Culture. 'But the museum, if you actually go to it rather than just talk about it and see it on paper from a Truth Social post, it doesn't only focus on suffering. It is about resilience and achievement and celebration. Umbrella? History.' The CNN anchor noted that the museum highlights the achievements of Black icons like Muhammad Ali, Louis Armstrong, Jim Brown, Gabby Douglas and Carl Lewis. 'If that's woke, then maybe woke just means telling the whole story because every exhibition that I've just mentioned showcases exactly what Trump says that he wants: success, brightness, a look toward the future,' Coates argued. Responding to Trump's 2017 remark that the museum is a 'reminder of why we have to fight bigotry, intolerance, and hatred in all of its very ugly forms,' Coates concluded, '[I] couldn't have said it better myself, Mr. President.' The post Laura Coates Uses Trump's Own Words to Shatter 'Woke' Smithsonian Claims: 'Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself, Mr. President' | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's how much it costs to house asylum seekers in UK hotels
Councils across England may take legal action to remove asylum seekers from hotels after a court injunction A landmark court judgment that has temporarily blocked asylum seekers from being housed at a hotel in Essex has left many councils considering similar court actions. On Tuesday (19 August) the High Court granted Epping Forest District Council an interim injunction to block asylum seekers from being housed at The Bell Hotel. The judge in the case ruled in favour of the council when it argued the hotel had become a public safety risk and had breached planning law. The hotel must stop housing asylum seekers by 4pm on 12 September. In response Broxbourne Council in Hertfordshire said it was taking legal advice 'as a matter of urgency' to perhaps take similar legal action. And Reform UK has stated that all 12 councils controlled by the party will "do everything in their power to follow Epping's lead", according to leader Nigel Farage. Why does this matter? The injunction poses a huge problem for the UK government who may now battle the court decision at the Court of Appeal and face the prospect of rehousing thousands. Home Office lawyers had argued during the hearing that the case had a "substantial impact" on the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, in performing her legal duties to asylum seekers. The Labour government's attempt to delay the application was rejected by Mr Justice Eyre. The Bell Hotel has become the focus of ongoing protests in recent weeks following allegations involving individuals residing there under the asylum system. The demonstrations began after Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, an asylum seeker staying at the hotel, was charged with the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. He has denied these charges. In a separate case, another resident of the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has been charged with seven offences, which he denies. Additionally, several other men have been charged in connection with disorder that took place outside the premises. How many asylum seekers are placed in hotels? Since around 2020, there has been increased use of hotels for contingency asylum accommodation. The rise has been attributed to several factors, such as the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent public health measures; an increase in the number of migrants crossing the Channel in small boats; and a backlog in unresolved asylum cases. Home Office data states that a total of 109,343 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending March 2025. This was 17% more than in the year ending March 2024 and 6% more than the previous peak of 103,081 in 2002. The Migration Observatory, an independent research project focused on analysing migration and migrants in the UK, said that at the end of March there were 32,345 asylum seekers in hotels. This represents 30% of all supported asylum seekers in this period and has dropped from 34,530 last year and 47,518 in 2023. The peak number of asylum seekers housed was 56,042 at the end of September 2023. The majority of asylum seekers being housed in hotels are in London. In March 12,024 60% of asylum seekers living in hotels, were housed in the capital. A written parliamentary response in February 2025 confirmed 218 hotels were being used to house asylum seekers, with seven due to close in April. How much does it cost? Analysis by the Migration Observatory across 2024-25 states the average daily cost of housing an asylum seeker in a hotel was estimated to be £170 per person. This has decreased slightly in the financial year 2024/25 falling from the equivalent of £176 per person last year. The three-month average nightly rate in asylum hotels has also declined from £162 in April 2024 to £119 in March 2025, as the number of hotels being used also dropping. This reduction in cost is likely due to several factors, including the Home Office closing some hotels, accommodating more people in each hotel, implementing room-sharing policies, and possibly choosing hotels with cheaper nightly rates. The cost of using a hotel is more than six times more expensive than using other types of accommodation, with a rate of £27 being the average for other types of accommodation. When you multiply the three-month average rate of £119 per night, by the number of housed asylum seekers, it costs the UK government around £3,849,055 per night. Arguing for the Bell Hotels owner's Somani Hotels, Piers Riley-Smith, said during the court hearing that asylum seekers a "financial lifeline" to the hotel. He added it was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers. Why hotel court ruling creates such a problem The Home Office has been attempting to come to grips with a growing number of asylum seekers attempting to find alternatives to costly hotels. Labour has said it plans to empty the hotels housing asylum seekers by 2029, although some contracts run beyond this. The judge ruled against Somani Hotels, after Epping Forest District Council cited alleged breaches of planning laws. The government will likely challenge the decision, as they did on Tuesday, believing the ruling "substantially impact" the government's ability to house asylum seekers. If other local councils follow Epping's lead, and are successful, this could mean the mass rehousing of thousands of migrants. Dan Jarvis, Minister of State for Security, said Labour has "never thought that hotels were an appropriate source of accommodation for asylum seekers" and the government was looking at "alternative accommodation arrangements". In June, a Home Affairs Committee heard how the government was looking at buying tower blocks and former student accommodation to house migrants. Another possible alternative is for the government to house asylum seekers in flats or houses that have been rented from private landlords or social housing providers. These plans can be resisted locally, as when in October this year more than 1,000 people protested in Waterlooville, Hampshire, when plans were announced accommodate 35 families in flats above shops. The removal of migrants from hotels to private accommodation is likely to save the UK government money, as hotels are the most expensive way to house asylum seekers. This would also mean many would be relocated to housing in 'cheaper areas' of the UK, according to former Conservative MP Damian Green, who served as a minster under Theresa May. Subsequent governments have failed to establish large accommodation sites in buildings such as disused military barracks. One site, Wethersfield, a former Ministry of Defence site in Braintree, Essex, may increase its capacity to house single adult male asylum seekers. But creating large-scale sites like this can be costly. In 2024, the National Audit Office (NAO), published a report which revealed the initial set-up costs for Wethersfield were initially estimated at about £5m, but had ballooned to around £49m. Mr Green said the government should use purpose-built housing, like the Nightingale hospitals used during Covid to "toughen up" the accommodation to use as a deterrent so as not seen as 'offensively luxurious'. In 2022 the Conservative government said it would use 'large sites', such as former military facilities, barges, ferries, and cruise ships. One such site was The Bibby Stockholm, a converted barge moored in Dorset which was subsequently decommissioned by the Labour government in November 2024 amid safety concerns. The barge, which provided accommodation for up to 400 single male asylum seekers a night at maximum occupancy, had cost the taxpayer at least £34.8m, according to the National Audit Office. Another site that could be adapted for use is the Napier Barracks in Kent, which is set to be closed in September 2025. In June 2021 it was found that the site provided inadequate accommodation for asylum seekers, that the Home Office's process for selecting people to be accommodated at the Barracks was flawed and unlawful, and that residents of Napier Barracks were unlawfully detained.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stablecoins Should Not Be Exempt From New York Crypto Tax, Lawmaker Says
New York State Assemblymember Phil Steck's proposed tax on crypto transactions will not be modified to accommodate stablecoins' use in everyday payments, the lawmaker told Decrypt. 'I don't think that there should be some exemption from a tax on crypto if you buy it for the purpose of using it as a currency,' he said on Tuesday. 'I can't see, frankly, crypto being used to take the place of the dollar bill in everyday transactions.' Last week, Steck estimated that a 0.2% tax on crypto transactions in the Empire State would generate $158 million annually, which could go toward helping schools combat substance abuse in upstate New York by funding the expansion of an existing support program. 'We thought this might be a way to raise the money needed to make this a statewide program,' he said, noting that the state's Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services currently serves communities in New York City and has faced budget constraints. Crypto advocates should support what appears to be a painless way of raising money to help those in need because it would 'show their commitment to doing something positive for the public,' the 66-year-old lawmaker said. Not all cryptocurrencies are the same, but digital assets are mostly speculative and resemble a form of entertainment, Steck said. And when Steck wants to watch professional baseball, he has no problem with paying a 4% sales tax on Mets tickets. Steck's bill would go into effect immediately if passed, and it comes as stablecoin legislation is expected to unlock more competition in the $280 billion sector, from the likes of Bank of America to Citigroup, following the passage of the GENIUS Act last month. But at least one observer has raised concerns that the bill would penalize consumers for transfers between their own accounts that incur no profits. These movements are similar to those an individual would execute between a savings and checking account. Stablecoins are often pegged to the U.S. dollar and backed by a mix of cash and U.S. Treasuries. Some regulators have compared them to poker chips in the past because crypto traders primarily use them primarily as a way to swap out of relatively volatile assets. Visa Adds More Stablecoin Features, Unveiling Avalanche, Stellar Support Steck's bill could make a positive impact upstate, but it's unclear how a 0.2% excise tax would play out in the epicenter of the financial world. Steck said his legislation would not include exemptions for high-frequency traders, who can execute thousands of transactions in a second while using complex computer algorithms to capitalize on the smallest changes in markets. 'I would see taxing high-frequency trading as very advantageous because [many economists] do not consider that to be productive economic activity,' he said. 'It's not for investment purposes. It's essentially a form of gambling.' Steck has meanwhile called for the reinstatement of a state tax on stock transfers. New York collected a 5-cent fee on sales over $20 from 1905 to 1981. It's possible that Steck's $158 million revenue estimate is low. His team tried to get information on the volume of crypto transactions in New York from the state's Department of Financial Services, but a bill memo shared with Decrypt notes those efforts were unsuccessful. Under the bill's plain text, crypto users would be taxed for moving funds between accounts they own, a non-event from the perspective of federal tax, Nick Slettengren, co-founder and CEO of Count on Sheep, a tax preparation service, told Decrypt. 'Unless regulations carve it out, [the bill] would penalize basic security hygiene and bookkeeping,' he said. 'That's a recipe for confusion, over-collection, and disputes.' Steck isn't the only one turning to crypto to help fund schools. Wyoming debuted its Frontier Stable Token (FRNT) on Tuesday, becoming the first state to issue stablecoin, and revenue generated by the token's reserves will go toward the state's school foundation fund. Asked for his thoughts on FRNT, Steck said 'they're going to have to pay a lot of money to create that currency digitally, which is very expensive from the point of view of using energy.' The lawmaker did not appear to know the difference between proof-of-work or proof-of-stake, or that Bitcoin's energy consumption is massive compared to other networks, including the seven blockchains that Wyoming's stablecoin debuted on earlier this week. So far, Steck said he hasn't had the opportunity to gauge assemblymembers' thoughts on the crypto tax. Not only was the bill just introduced, but he said that the New York legislature will not be in session until January.
