What to know about states blocking Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood
Here are things to know about the situation:
Abortion opponents see it as a victory on principle
This legal dispute goes back to a 2018 executive order from South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster that barred abortion providers from receiving Medicaid money in the state, even for services unrelated to abortion.
Advertisement
In its 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court overruled lower courts and said that patients don't necessarily have the right to sue for Medicaid to cover their health care from specific providers.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Abortion opponents hail it as a victory on principle.
'No one should be forced to subsidize abortion,' CatholicVote President Kelsey Reinhardt said in a statement.
Abortion rights advocates say it will hurt health care access
Supporters of Planned Parenthood see the ruling as an obstacle to health care aside from abortion.
Planned Parenthood 'provides services for highly disadvantaged populations and this will mean not only that many women in the state will lose their right to choose providers, but it will also mean that many women will lose services altogether,' said Lawrence Gostin, who specializes in public health law at Georgetown Law.
Advertisement
For many people with Medicaid, Gostin said, Planned Parenthood is a trusted service provider, and it's often the closest one.
Others emphasize that the people who could be most impacted are women who already face the greatest obstacles to getting health care.
'People enrolled in Medicaid, including young people and people of color, already face too many barriers to getting health care,' Kimberly Inez McGuire, the executive director of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equality, said in a statement. 'This decision makes a difficult situation worse.'
The implications may be narrow in South Carolina, but broader elsewhere
Planned Parenthood has two clinics in South Carolina, one in Charleston and one in Columbia.
Combined, they've been receiving about $90,000 a year from Medicaid out of nearly $9 billion a year the program spends in the state.
South Carolina has banned most abortions after six weeks gestational age, before many women realize they're pregnant. It's one of four states to bar abortion at that point. Another 12 are enforcing bans at all stages of pregnancy. The bans were implemented after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
The most recent high court ruling isn't a guarantee that other states will follow South Carolina's lead, but Republican attorneys general of 18 other states filed court papers supporting the state's position in the case.
'We can imagine that there's anti-abortion legislators in states who are looking to this case and may try to replicate what South Carolina has done,' said Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy at the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.
The federal government is also targeting Planned Parenthood
The U.S. House last month passed a budget measure that would bar all federal payments for 10 years to nonprofit groups that provide abortion and received more than $1 million in federal funding in 2024.
Advertisement
A Senate vote on the measure, which President Donald Trump supports, could happen in coming days.
Planned Parenthood says that if the measure becomes law, it would force its affiliates to close up to 200 of their 600 facilities across the U.S. The hardest-hit places would be the states where abortion is legal.
If the federal effort is successful, Friedrich-Karnik said states that support abortion rights could use their own tax revenue to keep clinics open.
On a call with reporters this week, SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said it's a priority for her group to hobble Planned Parenthood.
She said starving Planned Parenthood of Medicaid reimbursements would not have a major impact on patients, because other clinics offer similar services without providing abortion.
'Medicaid money is attached to the person, so she'll retain the same amount of money,' Dannenfelser said. 'She'll just take it to a different place.'
Abortion funding is already battered
The 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended the nationwide right to abortion jolted the abortion system across the U.S. and left clinics struggling.
Women in states with bans in place now use abortion pills or travel to states where it's legal.
Surveys have found that the number of monthly abortions nationally has risen since the court ruling.
But over the same time period, some clinics have closed and funds that help people obtain abortion have said it's hard to stretch their money to cover the added cost of travel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
5 minutes ago
- CNBC
Supreme Court limits powers of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions
CNBC's Megan Cassella joins 'Squawk on the Street' with the latest news from the Supreme Court.
USA Today
7 minutes ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court sides with religious parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 27 sided with a group of parents who want to withdraw their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. In a 6-3 decision that divided along ideological lines, the court said a Maryland public school district's refusal to allow opt-outs likely burdens parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. They said the school must allow opt-outs while the legal challenge continues. Their decision continues a recent trend of high court rulings backing claims of religious discrimination, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights. In the past, the federal courts have shied away from getting entangled in school curriculum issues. WASHINGTON – In a surprise decision, the Supreme Court on XXday sided against a group of parents who want to be able to withdraw their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. The court said a Maryland public school district's refusal to allow opt-outs does not burden parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. Their decision goes against a recent trend of the high court rulings backing claims of religious discrimination, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights. But in the past, the federal courts have shied away from getting entangled in school curriculum issues. The Maryland parents – who include Muslims, Roman Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox followers – said they're not trying to prevent other students from reading the books. But free speech advocates argued that will be the practical effect. And national organizations representing school administrators worried schools could face a 'bewildering variety' of religious rights claims. In classrooms across the country, children are routinely taught ideas that conflict with their family's religious beliefs, lawyers for the Montgomery County Public Schools told the court during April's oral arguments. What are the controversial books? School officials said they introduced a handful of books with LGBTQ+ characters into the reading curriculum at the start of the 2022-2023 school year as part of an effort to better reflect the community. The school system, in suburban Washington, is one of the nation's largest and most ethnically and religiously diverse. The controversial books include one in which the handsome prince falls in love not with a princess, but with the knight who helps him defeat a dragon. In another, 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' Chloe's favorite uncle gets married to another man. The book 'Intersection Allies' features nine kids from different backgrounds, including Alejandra, who uses a wheelchair while playing basketball; Adilah, who wears a hijab in ballet class; and Kate, who prefers a superhero cape to 'skirts and frills.' More: What LGBTQ+ books are at the center of a new Supreme Court case? After various teachers, administrators and parents raised concerns about the effectiveness and age-appropriateness of the books, the school system allowed students to be excused when they were read in class. But officials said they had to stop that because the growing number of opt-out requests created other problems, such as high absenteeism and the difficulty of arranging alternate instruction. They also said students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families could face social stigma and isolation if classmates leave the room when the books are read. Some parents said the books conflict with their faith The parents who then sued said they shouldn't have to send their kids to private school or to homeschool to avoid instruction that goes against the tenets of their religions. 'Intentionally exposing our young, impressionable, elementary-aged son to activities and curriculum on sex, sexuality, and gender that undermine Islamic teaching on these subjects would be immoral and would conflict with our religious duty to raise our children in accordance with our faith,' parents Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat said in a court filing about why they didn't want their son to be part of his second grade class's reading of 'Prince & Knight.' But a divided panel of appeals court judges said the parents hadn't shown that they or their children had been coerced to believe or act contrary to their religious views. The parents asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The Trump administration backed the parents, saying the schools had put 'a price on a public benefit of public education at the expense of foregoing your religious beliefs.'
Associated Press
8 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks. The justices reversed lower-court rulings in favor of the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington. The high court ruled that the schools likely could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in the case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The school district introduced the storybooks, including 'Prince & Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a niece worries that her uncle won't have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years and the case is among several religious-rights cases at the court this term. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. Many of the removals were organized by Moms for Liberty and other conservative organizations that advocate for more parental input over what books are available to students. Soon after President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the Education Department called the book bans a 'hoax' and dismissed 11 complaints that had been filed under Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing in the Maryland case that the objecting parents wanted 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. Parents initially had been allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. At arguments in April, a lawyer for the school district told the justices that the 'opt outs' had become disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though they didn't send their children to public schools. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at END PREP The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday signaled support for the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters. The court seemed likely to find that the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The case is one of three religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. Parents initially were allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though none sent their children to public schools. 'I guess I am a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. Kavanaugh also expressed surprise that the school system was 'not respecting religious liberty,' especially because of the county's diverse population and Maryland's history as a haven for Catholics. Pressed repeatedly about why the school system couldn't reinstitute an opt-out policy, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said, 'It tried that. It failed. It was not able to accommodate the number of opt-outs at issue.' Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, Schoenfeld said. Justices referred to several of the books, but none as extensively as 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in which a niece worries that her uncle will not have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor and conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who are on opposite sides of most culture-war clashes, offered competing interpretations. 'Is looking at two men getting married, is that the religious objection?' Sotomayor said, noting there's not even any kissing involved. Alito described the book as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. 'The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with,' he said. In all, five books are at issue in the high court case, touching on the same themes found in classic stories that include Snow White, Cinderella and Peter Pan, the school system's lawyers wrote. In 'Prince and Knight,' two men fall in love after they rescue the kingdom, and each other. 'Love, Violet' deals with a girl's anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl. 'Born Ready' is the story of a transgender boy's decision to share his gender identity with his family and the world. 'Intersection Allies' describes nine characters of varying backgrounds, including one who is gender-fluid. Billy Moges, a board member of the Kids First parents' group that sued over the books, said the content is sexual, confusing and inappropriate for young schoolchildren. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing what the parents want is 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by early summer.
