Supreme Court hears South Carolina dispute over attempt to defund Planned Parenthood
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear a dispute arising from an effort by anti-abortion Republican officials in South Carolina to prevent reproductive health care provider Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds.
Although the divisive issue of abortion lurks in the background, the case focuses on a technical legal question of whether those eligible to use Medicaid, a program for low-income people administered by states, can sue in order to pick their preferred health care provider.
Ahead of the oral argument, competing groups of activists gathered outside the Supreme Court building, with a brass band providing a lively soundtrack. Some held signs saying, "I will fight for Planned Parenthood," while others had signs that said, "Planned Parenthood puts politics over people."
Opposition to abortion drove the state's move to defund Planned Parenthood, which came four years before the Supreme Court in 2022 rolled back the landmark abortion rights ruling in Roe v. Wade.
South Carolina now has a six-week abortion ban, meaning abortions are rare in the state.
Planned Parenthood has facilities in Charleston and Columbia that provide limited abortion care in accordance with the new restrictions as well as other health care services including contraception, cancer screenings and pregnancy testing.
The case arose in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster issued an executive order that barred Planned Parenthood of South Atlantic, the local affiliate of the national group, from providing family planning services under Medicaid.
Julie Edwards, a Medicaid-eligible patient who wants to use Planned Parenthood services, joined the group in suing the state, saying that under federal civil rights law she could enforce her rights in court.
A federal judge ruled in her favor, and after lengthy litigation, the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on the legal question.
In court papers, Edwards' lawyers cited a Medicaid provision that says patients can choose a "qualified provider" and noted that no one disputes that Planned Parenthood can safely provide the services she requires.
They rely in part on a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that allowed people to sue to enforce their rights under a different federal law called the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act.
The state, which has the backing of the Trump administration, points out that there are 140 clinics and pregnancy centers in the state as well as other health providers who accept Medicaid.
The Medicaid statute differs from the law at issue in the 2023 ruling because it has no "rights-creating provisions," the state's lawyers argue in court papers. South Carolina is represented by the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
5 minutes ago
- Fox News
Ex-Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy pleads for civil political discourse, warns 'democracy is at risk'
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned Thursday that the tone of political discourse and threats to judges are undermining the ability of the U.S. to serve as an example of freedom and democracy around the world. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who retired in 2018 during President Donald Trump's first term, was speaking during a virtual forum about threats to the rule of law, as he defended the role of judges in a democracy and advocated for the need to protect them and their families from threats. "Many in the rest of the world look to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be," Kennedy said during the "Speak Up for Justice" event, one day before the current Supreme Court justices are set to deliver their final rulings of the current term. "If they see a hostile, fractious discourse, if they see a discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk. Freedom is at risk," he continued. Kennedy did not mention Trump, even as other participants expressed concern about the barrage of threats and attacks against judges for blocking key parts of the president's political agenda during his second term, including his immigration policies, firings of federal workers and his implementation of broad-based tariffs. But Kennedy's remarks appeared to be sparked, at least in part, by the Trump administration's repeated attacks against judges who have ruled against him, including some whom he appointed during his first term. In March, Trump criticized U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg as a "radical left lunatic" and called for his impeachment after he attempted to block the administration from removing alleged Venezuelan gang members from the U.S. under the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime presidential power Trump invoked. Last month, Trump attacked "USA-hating" judges as "monsters who want our country to go to hell." Trump's rhetoric has come alongside an uptick in threats against judges, according to POLITICO, although spokespeople for the administration have said the president is against any threats and that they would face prosecution from the Justice Department. Kennedy said "judges must have protection for themselves and their families" and that "judges are best protected when the public and our nation realize how central they are to our discourse." "We should be concerned in this country about, as I've already indicated, the tone of our political discourse," he said. "Identity politics are used so that a person is characterized by his or her partisan affiliation. That's not what democracy and civil discourse is about." Other participants at the forum, which featured judges from the U.S. and other countries who warned about how attacks on courts can threaten democracies, also took aim at Trump's statement denouncing the courts. Without mentioning Trump by name, U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, whose son was killed by a disgruntled lawyer who went to her New Jersey home in 2020, said disinformation about judges was spreading "from the top down," with jurists attacked as "rogue" and "corrupt." "Judges are rogue. Sound familiar? Judges are corrupt. Sound familiar? Judges are monsters. … Judges hate America," Salas said. "We are seeing the spreading of disinformation coming from the top down." Salas warned that the number of threats recorded against judges this year was reaching historic heights in the U.S., noting that the U.S. Marshals Service has tracked more than 400 threats against judges since January, when Trump was inaugurated. "We're going to break records, people, and not in a good way," she said.
Business Insider
30 minutes ago
- Business Insider
'A graveyard of companies': Climate tech startups are feeling the heat from Trump 2.0
Trump's new bill affects tax credits that benefited the clean energy sector and climate startups. It's spooked some climate founders who worked in industries relying on government subsidies. Many are now pivoting to new brands and geographies, and investors expect a reset. The Trump administration's proposed overhaul of green energy tax credits has jolted the climate tech sector — and investors and founders in the ecosystem are scrambling to make fallback plans. Cleantech stocks tumbled in May after a bill cutting tax credits for clean energy incentives passed through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Now, founders and investors are concerned about the knock-on impact this could have on the country's climate tech ecosystem, which was burgeoning under the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA. They told Business Insider that Trump's bill has stifled startup growth ambitions, pushing them to scale back, pivot to new geographies, or shut down entirely. "There will be a graveyard of companies," Matthew Nordan, managing partner at clean tech fund Azolla Ventures, told BI. "And a lot of startups will hibernate to try to weather the storm." Early-stage startups are already beginning to feel the heat. In April, Spencer Gore, founder and CEO of Bedrock Materials, a sodium-ion battery startup, made an unusual announcement on LinkedIn: the startup would be returning most of its $9 million raised to investors and ceasing operations. The company had plenty of operational cash, but "it was the techno-economics that led us to pull the plug," Gore told BI, adding that the market conditions for climate tech startups in the US were hampered by waning industrial policy. Startups are pivoting and eyeing new geographies A byproduct of the new tax bill — and growing political backlash against ESG incentives — is that Europe is becoming more attractive for climate techs to set up shop. "There's a dramatic retrenchment to Europe occurring within climate tech startups now. It's broad-based, and the EU is doing the opposite of what the US is doing right now," Nordan told BI. Sam Kanner, the CEO of floating wind turbine startup Aikido, an Azolla portfolio company, told BI he's considering moving his company to Europe. Trump's executive orders have "put a chill on investor sentiment and project development in the US," he said. There are "no longer any grant opportunities" through the Department of Energy or other agencies, he added, which means its "go-to-market strategy is now completely focused on Europe." Blain said that startups in the EU could turn to government funding from bodies such as the European Investment Fund, adding that "energy prices make the Nordics very attractive" as a hub. Europe, in particular, has made significant headway in aligning regulatory frameworks with climate targets, which de-risks early-stage tech, said Todd Khozein, CEO of SecondMuse. Kanner said that the UK, France, and Norway had "enacted supportive policies which have had the opposite effect on investors in those ecosystems", encouraging private equity, infrastructure, and venture investors to back wind projects. Startups are also eager to look beyond Europe for expansion. "Generally speaking, the EU has made itself unattractive from a manufacturing standpoint, by over-relying on Russia. We'd look to Brazil, India, and the Middle East," Max Kufner, cofounder of carbon capture and utilization startup Again, told BI. "The Middle East is proving to be a viable partner in decarbonization." Right now, "a lot of climate tech entrepreneurs are asking themselves what it means to be an entrepreneur in the United States, and whether this is really the best place to attract and retain talent," Gore said. "What we're seeing right now with startups is similar to the playbook we saw with Trump 1.0. A lot of companies will make a push to rebrand themselves as energy security and resilience funds," Nordan said. Climate tech startups have had a rocky year The aftermath of a global tech downturn, rising interest rates, and mounting backlash against ESG incentives has made it increasingly difficult for climate tech startups to fundraise. In the first quarter of 2025, climate startups secured $10 billion, down 50% from the $20 billion raised in Q1 of 2024, per PitchBook data. Biden's IRA offered climate companies billions of dollars worth of subsidies, tax credits, and rebates. The Trump administration is now attempting to roll back parts of the $369 billion initiative. "Anything that relied on grants, that came out of the IRA, for first-of-a-kind (FOAK) projects, will be hit the hardest," Nordan said. For example, direct air capture startup Climeworks — which received a $50 million US government grant in 2024 — laid off over 100 employees in May. Its CEO told Bloomberg that the startup's upcoming Louisiana plant would be delayed in light of the Trump administration's green policy decisions. Nordan anticipates more layoffs and shutdowns of companies that were dependent on government grants. Offshore wind and solar projects have also been in Trump's crosshairs. While these aren't usually venture-backed categories, the steep reduction in staff at the Department of Energy's loan program office, which provided debt funding to clean energy startups, will have a more debilitating impact on companies in these sectors, Matthew Blain, an investor at Voyager Ventures, told BI. Still, investor appetite for nuclear fusion, long-duration energy storage, and startups making data centers more efficient has accelerated, partly due to the AI boom, which requires immense energy.
Boston Globe
32 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump was wrong to bomb Iran. Democrats must be the antiwar party.
At a moment when our country is looking for strong antiwar leadership, Democrats must be the party of peace — peace abroad and good-paying jobs at home. Being the party of peace does not mean that we are the party of pacifism or a party of isolationism. It means that we oppose wars of choice. It means that we reject the Beltway establishment that is pushing for war. War is a terrible thing: It is economically costly, it tears apart families, and innocent people die. Wars should only be fought in the face of an actual attack or imminent threat of attack, and then only when diplomacy has been exhausted and there is no way to repel the attack except through force. They should not be fought for territorial expansion, glory, or regime change. Advertisement Vietnam was a war of choice, which the United States should not have fought. The Iraq War was a war of choice that Advertisement How do Democrats become the antiwar party? We can start by standing firmly for diplomacy, the Constitution, and for our priorities at home — good-paying jobs, affordable health care, education — instead of endless conflict. Trump should not have ordered strikes on Iran. It is in America's national security interest to stop Iran from having a bomb, but the US attack reportedly only What comes next is most important. We need to ensure that the cease-fire holds and that we have diplomacy that prevents Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. We know that diplomacy works. Former president Barack Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action limited enrichment to Advertisement We also need to prevent any further escalation with Iran without the authorization of Congress. That is why Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and I introduced a bipartisan It is easier to start a war than to end one. Democrats have to be the voice of restraint and principled diplomacy. As the party of peace, we can offer a vision — one where we invest in improving the lives of working-class people. That is how we build a stronger democracy where everyone can thrive.
