Trump's tax bill snuck in Planned Parenthood attack that will hurt Indiana women
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law July 4, includes provisions that go into effect Oct. 1 mandating that Medicaid spending can't be used towards clinics designated as nonprofit organizations that provide family planning services and reproductive care.
A federal judge has partially blocked implementation of this provision. If it takes effect, though, that would mean Medicaid users won't be able to access care from Planned Parenthood clinics, among other similar nonprofit health services.
While conservatives are hailing this as a pro-life victory, this law is far from saving lives. It targets all of the resources and care that Planned Parenthood provides, including contraception, STI testing, HIV-related care, mental health support and so much more.
More from Sadia Khatri: Abortion ban, fetal anomaly and a ticking clock: 'an impossible decision'
There's a misconception that Planned Parenthood only provides access to abortions. The organization offers a wide variety of care. In states like Indiana, where abortion is banned, Planned Parenthood doesn't even provide abortions.
Some states might use state funding to cover abortion services for Medicaid enrollees, but federal dollars do not pay for abortions.
Dr. Tracey Wilkinson, a pediatrician and professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine, thinks the Big Beautiful Bill has less to do with fiscal responsibility and a lot more to do with control.
'The Hyde Amendment has been in place for decades, preventing any federal funds, including Medicaid funds, to ever be used for abortion,' Wilkinson said. 'This issue in the federal budget is not about that. This issue is about preventing people that want to get birth control or want to get testing for sexually transmitted diseases, not being able to go there anymore, and ultimately, hopefully, the goal being that that clinic no longer can keep their doors open and will close.'
This bill goes beyond the typical anti-abortion agenda. It's an attack on health care, and it's particularly concerning for a state like Indiana.
More from Sadia Khatri: Why young progressives shouldn't give up on Indiana — or flee from it
Many Indiana counties are considered maternity care deserts, which are defined as counties where there are zero hospitals that offer obstetric care and zero physicians who provide obstetric care. A little under a quarter of Indiana counties are maternity care deserts. An additional fifth of Indiana counties have limited access to obstetric care.
Collectively, almost half of the counties in Indiana have limited or no access to obstetric care.
Not all Hoosiers can easily get access to reproductive, sexual health and general OB-GYN-related care in Indiana. This bill is only going to exacerbate that.
Planned Parenthood last year received 34,403 visits from Hoosiers across 11 health centers, 53% of whom had incomes at or below the federal poverty line. In 35% of cases, patients were insured by Medicaid. Planned Parenthood provided 30,000 family planning visits, 42,000 STI tests, 5,500 HIV tests and 1,300 Pap tests.
Federal law threatens all of those services for Medicaid enrollees.
For Hoosiers on Medicaid who live in areas where obstetric care is limited or nonexistent, there aren't always alternatives to Planned Parenthood clinics. Planned Parenthood often is the alternative.
It's not just Planned Parenthood that's going to be negatively impacted. Indiana could lose 12 rural hospitals, Wilkinson said. When hospitals shut down, health care deserts worsen.
This allegedly big and beautiful bill is about taking bodily autonomy and control away from patients and placing it in the hands of elected officials. Limiting access to family-planning and contraceptive resources has ripple effects.
'When you take away people's abilities to decide if and when and how to become a parent, all the downstream impacts are worsened,' Wilkinson said. 'Infant mortality is worsened, maternal mortality is worsened and pregnancies tend to be more complicated.'
For Hoosiers enrolled in Medicaid, it's important to be vigilant and aware about your coverage. Dr. Wilkinson recommends regularly checking to make sure you are still enrolled.
Rebecca Gibron, a regional CEO for Planned Parenthood, said the organization will continue to build new pathways to care. Planned Parenthood recently increased access to its telehealth services, helping more patients access remote services.
"Indiana's reproductive health care landscape is being reshaped by relentless political interference from local and national leaders —designed to limit our freedom to control our own bodies," Gibron said. "But they should know: Planned Parenthood will never stop showing up for our patients."
Despite what some politicians and pundits may say about the Big Beautiful Bill, the reality is that people will lose access to healthcare in some way. The outlook on reproductive health in Indiana is only going to get more grim.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump plans drug tariffs of up to 250%
President Donald Trump threatened to levy tariffs of up to 250% on pharmaceuticals imported into the United States. The president told CNBC on Aug. 5 that he plans to announce new tariffs "within the next week or so" on imports of pharmaceutical and semiconductor imports. He said he plans to launch a smaller tariff on drug imports before increasing the duties over 12 to 18 months to a maximum amount. Trump would start with an "initially small tariff on pharmaceuticals," he said. "But in one year, one-and-a-half years maximum, it's going to go to 150%, and then it's going to go to 250%, because we want pharmaceuticals made in our country." He said other nations "make a fortune" on pharmaceuticals, citing drugs imported from China and Ireland. Trump has said several times in recent months that there could be trade actions for the pharmaceutical industry, which has globalized since the 1990s with a drug supply chain that stretches from Europe to China and India. In July, Trump said his administration planned pharmaceutical-specific tariffs of up to 200%, though drug companies would have time to establish U.S.-based drug manufacturing. In April, Trump said he planned to impose tariffs on pharmaceuticals made overseas, a move he said would prompt drug companies to move their operations to the U.S. On July 31, Trump sent letters to 17 drug companies urging them to lower U.S. drug prices by Sept. 29 to "most favored nation" amounts paid by other nations. In the letters, Trump urged drug companies to adopt such pricing on drug for Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income residents. He also requested drug companies lower U.S. prices to the same levels charged in Europe and elsewhere for newly-launched drugs for people on Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance plans. Trump also urged drug companies to lower pharmaceutical prices for U.S. consumers and businesses that directly purchase from drug companies. "Make no mistake: a collaborative effort towards achieving global pricing parity would be the most effective path for companies, the government and American patients," Trump said in the letters. "But if you refuse to step up, we will deploy every tool in our arsenal to protect American families from continued abusive drug pricing practices."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
'Vote him out!': Town hall erupts in anger at GOP congressman
House Republican Rep. Mike Flood faced what appeared to be a hostile crowd during a rowdy town hall on Monday night in Lincoln, Nebraska. The crowd erupted within just minutes of the start of the forum, shouting and heckling at the congressman as he touted President Donald Trump's massive policy and tax bill that was signed into law in July. Flood said there were about 750 members in the audience at Kimball Hall. "I know this is probably going to be met with some resistance ... I want the opportunity to tell you and talk to you about health care in the bill we just passed. I want to go right into this bill, because I know this is something a lot of people have questions about. And quite frankly, from where I sit, there's been a lot of misinformation out there about the bill," Flood told the crowd, which received loud boos from the audience. MORE: Meet some people who would feel the effects of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' He tried to walk the audience through key health care provisions of the megabill but was continuously drowned out by the raucous crowd. "The only way we're going to get through tonight is if I get a chance to tell you why I voted, because ultimately I represent you, and you will have your say," he said. The megabill's impact on Medicaid was a main topic brought up at the town hall, which angered the audience. "So, here's a question. Do you think that people who are 28 years old that can work and refuse to work, should get free health care?" Flood asked, which received an unfriendly response from the crowd. "I don't think that a majority of Nebraskans agree with you." MORE: It all came down to Murkowski: Inside the final passage of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' The congressman argued that while Medicaid benefits were not cut, the changes to the program don't "involve anybody that's disabled, that is of senior age and unable to work, anybody that is pregnant or the vulnerable." When asked by an audience member how the congressman can justify taking away health care from Nebraskans, Flood brushed off the concern. "We have a state where our infrastructure is going to be supported, is going to be funded, and is going to be available for the people that need it. If you are able to work, and you're 28 years old and you choose not to work, you don't get free health care in America. If you are in this country illegally, you do not get free health care in America." Audience members repeatedly shouted, "Tax the Rich! Tax the Rich! Tax the Rich!" as Rep. Flood discussed tax provisions of the megabill like no tax on tips and no tax on overtime. The congressman pushed back, saying, "If we adopted the Democrats' plan in the last Congress to tax the rich, it would generate $50 billion, which does not take us close to where we're going. And it cuts job creation. It cuts business creation. It cuts the ability for employers to invest in their businesses." "This bill is a middle-class tax cut," Rep. Flood said at one point, which received strong pushback and boos from the audience. "I read the bill," the congressman added when pressed by a constituent. "Is every bill perfect? No. But I supported this bill." Rep. Flood took several questions on a wide range of topics but the audience was remained not satisfied, yelling, "vote him out!" as the hour-and-a-half event came to a close.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A $715 billion tax cut turns into a $4.5 trillion sales job
Republicans minimized the size of their tax cuts when they pushed them through Congress, using a controversial accounting method to make most of them appear to cost the federal government nothing. But now a new mantra is emerging from lawmakers: Their tax cuts were huge. As they sell the package to voters, President Donald Trump and other Republicans are emphasizing how big the tax cuts are — often claiming, wrongly, that they are the largest in U.S. history. Implicit in the shift: Republicans are embracing the conventional budgeting 'baseline' they scorned during legislative debate because that now makes their tax cuts appear more impressive. Under the so-called current policy baseline Republicans used in Congress, their plan was projected to cost $715 billion over a decade — peanuts, in the world of tax cuts and a mere raindrop in the country's $36.8 trillion debt. But using a conventional yardstick means their tax cuts cost $4.5 trillion — not the largest ever, but sizable enough to at least be in the conversation. That has Democrats crying foul, with Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, complaining Republicans' boasts come after they used a 'budget gimmick' to 'claim that their massive tax giveaway to billionaires cost next to nothing.' Some Republicans aren't entirely comfortable with it either. 'I can't control what other people say,' said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), a member of the tax-writing Finance Committee. He said he instead tells voters Republicans averted a $4 trillion tax increase that would have come if lawmakers hadn't extended a slew of temporary tax cuts that were slated to expire at the end of this year. It's an ironic addendum to the long-running debate in Washington over Republicans using the current policy baseline to help pass their legislation, signed into law a little more than four weeks ago. And it comes as lawmakers now turn to selling their constituents on the package, which also includes controversial cuts in Medicaid and other programs. Early polling shows the package is not popular, though most taxpayers won't begin to benefit from the tax cuts until they file their returns next spring. Many are in line for extra-large refunds because Republicans made a number of provisions, including an enlarged Child Tax Credit and a more generous deduction for state and local taxes, retroactively available for the current tax year. During congressional consideration, Senate Republicans were adamant that the correct way to tally the cost of their plan was by comparing the changes to what the government was currently doing, not what was carved into law, as budget scorekeepers normally do. So, by that light, extending current tax policies into next year should cost nothing, and not even be seen as a reduction in taxes. The only tax cuts that counted, Republicans said, were new provisions like Trump's proposals to reduce levies on tips, overtime, auto-loans and seniors, along with enhancements of existing breaks, like a $200-per-child increase in the Child Tax Credit. The tactic drastically reduced the sticker price of the plan, no small deal given concern over federal red ink. And it made it much easier for lawmakers to make many of their provisions a permanent part of the tax code. Otherwise, under the Senate's internal rules, they would have had to find a lot more pay-fors to cover the cost of making permanent breaks for business investment, research and interest expenses. But that current policy baseline now not only makes their tax cuts look less consequential, it also shrinks the anticipated benefits to their constituents. Under the conventional baseline that Republicans spurned, people making between $60,000 and $80,000 would see their taxes fall by an average 12 percent in 2027, the official Joint Committee on Taxation said in an analysis last week. But those people would only get a 4.2 percent cut under a current policy baseline. Nevertheless, days after Trump signed the bill into law, Senate Republicans bragged on X that they had just cut taxes by $4.3 trillion. And lawmakers are now routinely claiming to have passed the largest-ever tax cut, though with a $715 billion price tag, the legislation is not significantly bigger than tax cuts passed during the coronavirus outbreak. The more conventional $4.5 billion estimate moves the legislation up the all-time-biggest-tax-cut list, though there were still larger ones, such as Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cuts and when Harry Truman cut wartime taxes in 1945. That hasn't deterred Republican claims to the contrary. 'We delivered the largest tax cut in American history,' Trump said recently. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) called questions of which baseline Republicans should use when talking about the tax cuts with voters 'nerdy' and 'technical." 'That's a great discussion for economists — that's not necessarily a great discussion for a politician on the campaign trail,' he said. But other Republicans say they are careful to stipulate that they avoided a $4 trillion tax increase, while stopping short of claiming to have cut taxes by that much. 'I always talk about how we stopped the largest tax increase in American history — I think that's a pretty compelling argument,' said Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), another tax writer. To further complicate matters, House Republicans did in fact use a conventional baseline, not a current-policy one, when they wrote their first draft of the legislation. Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said he doesn't have a problem if those GOP lawmakers tell voters they cut taxes by $4.5 trillion. The issue, he said, is when Republicans claim the tax cuts were small when they're talking about the impact on the government's debt but say they're big when talking about the benefits to voters. 'You can't jump back and forth,' said Goldwein. 'The problem is the inconsistency.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
